Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order, which confirmed additions made under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act. The primary grievance of the assessee was that these adjustments were made without being afforded an opportunity of being heard.
Held
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had incorrectly dismissed the grounds of appeal concerning the lack of opportunity as "general in nature." It held that these grounds required proper adjudication and that the CIT(A) had failed to do so, indicating a non-adjudication of material issues.
Key Issues
Whether adjustments made under Section 143(1) without providing an opportunity of being heard are valid. Whether the CIT(A) properly adjudicated grounds related to the non-grant of an opportunity to be heard.
Sections Cited
143(1), 139(1), 43B, 41, 234B, 234C
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH, ‘A’: NEW DELHI
Before: MS. MADHUMITA ROYAND
Date of Hearing 05.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement 11.03.2026 ORDER PER AMITABH SHUKLA, AM,
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of ADDL/JCIT (A)-1 Kolkata, [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT(A)] dated 25.06.2025 arising out of assessment order dated 22.08.2025 passed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2016-17. The word ‘Act’ herein this order would mean Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-
That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), ADDL. / JCIT (A)-1, KOLKATA [for short “CIT(Appeals)”] dated 22.08.2025, in dismissing the Appeal is against the principles of natural justice, contrary to facts, arbitrary, erroneous and bad, both in the eye of law and on facts and legally untenable.
2. The intimation dated 14.12.2022 u/s. 143(1) of the Asst. Director of Income Tax, Central Processing Centre (CPC), Bengaluru (for short “the "ADIT”/ "AO"/ "Assessing Officer") being against the principles of natural justice, being without/lack/in excess of jurisdiction, contrary to facts, unjustified, wrong. arbitrary, excessive, erroneous, bad, both in the eye of law and on facts and legally untenable ought to have been quashed.
That the appellant having not been given any opportunity nor received any communication before issuing of intimation dated 14.12.2022 u/s. 143(1) of the Act by the learned "ADIT”, as mandated u/s.143(1)(a) of the Act having not been complied with, the Order dated 22.08.2025 is contrary to facts, unjustified, arbitrary, erroneous, bad, both in the eye of law and on facts, legally untenable and is liable to be quashed on this ground alone.
4. Additions/ disallowance under “Bonus” – Rs.37,18,678/- a. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Order dated 22.08.2025 of the learned CIT(Appeals) in dismissing the Ground regarding Additions/disallowance of Rs.37,18,678/- under ‘Bonus’ is against the principles of natural justice, contrary to facts, unjustified, arbitrary, erroneous and bad, both in the eye of law and on facts and legally untenable. b. That the learned CIT(Appeals) Order dated 22.08.2025 in dismissing the Ground regarding Additions/ disallowance of Rs.37,18,678/- under ‘Bonus’ by holding that even though payment of bonus was allegedly made before the due date of filing the income tax return, the evidence of payment was admittedly not attached with the return of income filed by the assesse is, contrary to facts, arbitrary, erroneous and bad, both in the eye of law and on facts and legally untenable in as much as c. That there being no scope of any attachment could be made with the return of income at the time of filing of the IT return, the learned CIT(Appeals) holding that, the evidence of payment of Bonus before due date of filing of return was not attached with the return of income filed by the assesse and hence dismissing of the Ground regarding Additions/ disallowance of Rs.37,18,678/- under ‘Bonus’ vide Order dated 22.08.2025 is contrary to facts, arbitrary, erroneous and bad, both in the eye of law and on facts and legally untenable and liable to be rejected on this ground alone.
d. That the sum of Rs.37,18,678/- towards Bonus having actually been paid before the due date of filing of return u/s.139(1) of the Act but not being reported accordingly in Tax Audit Report (TAR) since date of TAR is prior to actual payment date and the supporting documents towards proof of the payment of said Bonus having been filed by the assessee, the sustenance/non-deletion of the addition/disallowance of Rs.37,18,678/-, Page 2 of 12 under ‘Bonus’ made in the Intimation dated 14.12.2022, by the learned CIT(Appeals) in the Order dated 22.08.2025 is contrary to facts, unjustified, arbitrary, without application of judicious mind, erroneous and bad, both in the eye of law and on facts and legally untenable. e. That without prejudice to the Grounds (a) to (d) above: i. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Additions/ disallowance of Rs.37,18,678/- under ‘Bonus’ made by the learned 'ADIT' in the intimation dated 14.12.2022 being against the principles of natural justice, without / in excess of jurisdiction, contrary to facts, incorrect ,unjustified, arbitrary, erroneous and bad, both in the eyes of law and on facts and legally untenable; ii. That the Bonus of Rs.37,18,678/- having been paid before due date of filing of the IT return although after the date of TAR, and no disallowance of the said Bonus of Rs.37,18,678/- having rightly been made by the Assessee in the ITR-6 filed, the addition/ disallowance of Rs.37,18,678/- under “Bonus” made by the learned 'ADIT' in the intimation dated 14.12.2022 of the Act is against the principles of natural justice, without in excess of jurisdiction, contrary to facts, incorrect, unjustified, arbitrary, erroneous and bad, both in the eyes of law and on facts and legally untenable, the Order dated 22.08.2025 of the learned CIT(Appeals) in sustaining the same by dismissing the Grounds of the assessee is against the principles of natural justice, contrary to facts, arbitrary, erroneous and bad, both in the eye of law and on facts and legally untenable. f. That without prejudice to the Grounds (a) to (d) above, the learned CIT(Appeals) in dismissing the Ground vide his order dated 22.08.2025 an thereby sustaining the addition of Rs.37,18,678/- under ‘Bonus’ is contrary to facts, arbitrary, erroneous and bad, both in the eye of law and on facts and legally untenable. g. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the addition/ disallowance of Rs.37,18,678/- under “Bonus” made by the learned 'ADIT' vide intimation dated 14.12.2022 of the Act ought to be fully deleted.
5. Additions/ disallowance under “Gratuity u/s 43B of the Act” – Rs.5,50,209/- a. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Order dated 22.08.2025 of the learned CIT(Appeals) in dismissing the Ground in respect of Addition of Rs.5,50,209/- under “Gratuity u/s 43B of the Act" is against the principles of natural justice, contrary to facts, arbitrary, erroneous and bad, both in the eye of law and on facts and legally untenable. b. That the learned CIT(Appeals) Order dated 22.08.2025 of in dismissing the Ground regarding Addition of Rs.5,50,209/- under “Gratuity u/s 43B of the Act" by holding that even though payment of Gratuity was allegedly made before the due date of filing the income tax return, the evidence of payment was admittedly not attached with the return of income filed by the Page 3 of 12
assessee is contrary to facts, arbitrary, erroneous and bad, both in the eye of law and on facts and legally untenable. c. That there being no scope of any attachment could be made with the return of income at the time of filing of the IT return, the learned CIT(Appeals) holding that, the evidence of payment of Gratuity before due date of filing of return was not attached with the return of income filed by the assesse and the dismissing of the Ground regarding Additions/ disallowance of Rs.5,50,209/- under “Gratuity u/s 43B of the Act" vide Order dated 22.08.2025 is contrary to facts, arbitrary, erroneous and bad, both in the eye of law and on facts and legally untenable and liable to be rejected on this ground alone. d. That the sum of Rs.5,50,209/- towards Gratuity having actually been paid before the due date of filing of return u/s.139(1) of the Act but not being reported accordingly in Tax Audit Report (TAR) since date of TAR is prior to actual payment date and the supporting documents towards proof of the payment of said Gratuity having been filed by the assessee, the sustenance/non-deletion of the addition/disallowance of Rs.5,50,209/- under “Gratuity u/s 43B of the Act" ‘Bonus’ made in the Intimation dated 14.12.2022 by the learned CIT(Appeals) in the Order dated 22.08.2025 is contrary to facts, unjustified, arbitrary, without application of judicious mind, erroneous and bad, both in the eye of law and on facts and legally untenable. e. That without prejudice to the Grounds (a) to (d) above: i. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the addition/ disallowance Additions/ disallowance of Rs.5,50,209/- under “Gratuity u/s 43B of the Act" made by the learned 'ADIT' in the intimation dated 14.12.2022 of the Act being against the principles of natural justice, without / in excess of jurisdiction, contrary to facts, incorrect ,unjustified, arbitrary, erroneous and bad, both in the eyes of law and on facts and legally untenable; ii. That the Gratuity Bonus of Rs.5,50,209/- having been paid before due date of filing of the IT return although after the date of TAR, and no disallowance of the said Gratuity of Rs.5,50,209/- having rightly been made by the Assessee in the ITR-6 filed, the addition/ disallowance of Rs.5,50,209/- under “Gratuity u/s 43B of the Act" by the learned 'ADIT' in the intimation dated 14.12.2022 of the Act is against the principles of natural justice, without in excess of jurisdiction, contrary to facts, incorrect, unjustified, arbitrary, erroneous and bad, both in the eyes of law and on facts and legally untenable, the Order dated 22.08.2025 of the learned CIT(Appeals) in sustaining the same by dismissing the Grounds of the assessee is against the principles of natural justice, contrary to facts, arbitrary, erroneous and bad, both in the eye of law and on facts and legally untenable. Page 4 of 12 f. That without prejudice to the Grounds (a) to (d) above, the learned CIT(Appeals) in dismissing the Ground vide his order dated 22.08.2025 and thereby sustaining the addition of Rs.5,50,209/- under “Gratuity u/s 43B of the Act" is contrary to facts, arbitrary, erroneous and bad, both in the eye of law and on facts and legally untenable. g. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the addition/ disallowance of Rs.5,50,209/- under “Gratuity u/s 43B of the Act" made by the learned 'ADIT' vide intimation dated 14.12.2022 of the Act ought to be fully deleted.
6. Additions under “U/S. 41 of the IT Act” – Rs.19,84,313/- a. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Order dated 22.08.2025 of the learned CIT(Appeals) in dismissing the Ground in respect of the Additions of Rs.19,84,313/- under “U/S. 41 of the IT Act” is against the principles of natural justice, contrary to facts, arbitrary, erroneous and bad, both in the eye of law and on facts and legally untenable. b. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(Appeals) vide Order dated 22.08.2025 in dismissing the Ground regarding Additions of Rs.19,84,313/- under “U/S. 41 of the IT Act” by holding that “from mere writing that bad debt recovered is part of miscellaneous income does not suffice”. “Nothing has been mentioned regarding such recovery in ITR” is contrary to facts, arbitrary, erroneous and bad, both in the eye of law and on facts and legally untenable. c. That there being no scope of anything to be mentioned in the prescribed Form in ITR-6, (the IT return form), the learned CIT(Appeals) holding that, “Nothing has been mentioned regarding such recovery in ITR” and the dismissing of the Ground regarding Additions of Rs.19,84,313/- under “U/S. 41 of the IT Act” vide Order dated 22.08.2025 is, contrary to facts, arbitrary, erroneous and bad, both in the eye of law and on facts and legally untenable and liable to be rejected on this ground alone. d. That the recovery of Rs.19,84,313/- towards bad debts written off in earlier years being included in “Miscellaneous income” under “Other Income” in its Statement of Profit and Loss of the assessee, and thereby having already been included in the Income of the assessee as per ITR-6 filed (through “Schedule BP” and Computation of Income) and the supporting documents thereon having been filed by the assessee, the sustenance/non-deletion of the addition of Rs.19,84,313/- under “U/S. 41 of the IT Act” made in the Intimation dated 14.12.2022 by the learned CIT(Appeals) in the Order dated 22.08.2025 is contrary to facts, unjustified, arbitrary, without application of judicious mind, erroneous and bad, both in the eye of law and on facts and legally untenable. e. That the aforesaid addition of Rs.19,84,313/- having resulted in twice addition/disallowance for the very said amount of Rs.19,84,313/-, the addition/disallowance of the said Rs.19,84,313/- made in Intimation u/s Page 5 of 12 143(1) of the Act is arbitrary, erroneous and bad, both in the eye of law and on facts and legally untenable and ought to be deleted. f. That without prejudice to the Ground (a) to (e) above: i. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Additions of Rs.19,84,313/- under “U/S. 41 of the IT Act” made by the learned 'ADIT' in the intimation dated 14.12.2022 of the Act being against the principles of natural justice, without / in excess of jurisdiction, contrary to facts, incorrect ,unjustified, arbitrary, erroneous and bad, both in the eyes of law and on facts and legally untenable; ii. That the aforesaid sum of Rs.19,84,313/- being Bad Debt recovered and having already been included in the Profit and Loss Account and thereby in ITR-6 (in Schedule BP) and not being particularly required to be shown in Schedule BP but was reported in Clause 26 of TAR, the addition/disallowance of Rs.19,84,313/- under “U/S. 41 of the IT Act” made in Intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act is arbitrary, erroneous and bad, both in the eye of law and on facts and legally untenable. the Order dated 22.08.2025 of the learned CIT(Appeals) in sustaining the same by dismissing the Grounds of the assessee is against the principles of natural justice, contrary to facts, arbitrary, erroneous and bad, both in the eye of law and on facts and legally untenable. g. That without prejudice to the Grounds (a) to (e) above, the learned CIT(Appeals) in dismissing the Ground vide his order dated 22.08.2025 and thereby sustaining the addition of Rs.19,84,313/- under “U/S. 41 of the IT Act” is contrary to facts, arbitrary, erroneous and bad, both in the eye of law and on facts and legally untenable. h. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the addition/ disallowance of Rs.19,84,313/- under “U/S. 41 of the IT Act” made by the learned 'ADIT' vide intimation dated 14.12.2022 of the Act ought to be fully deleted.
7. That without prejudice to the Grounds 1 to 6 above, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the addition / disallowance of Rs.62,53,200/- (comprising of total of Rs.37,18,678/-, Rs.5,50,209/- and Rs.19,84,313/-) made in the intimation dated 14.12.2022 u/s. 143(1) of the Act by the "ADIT” ought to be deleted.
8. That without prejudice to the Grounds 1 to 7 above, there being no scope for giving any rejoinder to the Tax Audit Report, the said Tax Audit Report cannot be taken conclusively without examining the actual facts and under no circumstances the assessee should suffer therefrom and accordingly the intimation u/s. 143(1) dated 14.12.2022 is arbitrary, erroneous and bad, both in the eyes of law and on facts.
That without prejudice to the Grounds 1 to 8 above, the computation of the total income of Rs.50,80,14,680/- by the learned' ADIT' in the intimation dated 14.12.2022 u/s.143(1) of the Act, is wrong, incorrect, Page 6 of 12 unjustified, arbitrary, erroneous and bad, both in the eyes of law and on facts and legally untenable.
That without prejudice to the Grounds 1 to 9 above, the learned CIT(Appeals) has mis-appreciated /misconstrued the facts with respect to the Grounds of Appeal of the assessee, and having not adjudicated/ given any finding on the Ground Nos.1 to 3 before him, the Order dated 22.08.2025 is contrary to facts, incorrect, erroneous, arbitrary, erroneous, bad, both in the eye of law and on facts.
3. The principal issue which is seminal to the present appeal is regarding the non-grant of any opportunity of being heard to the assessee before making adjustment under section 143(1) of the Act by the Revenue authorities. As per brief factual matrix of the case an addition of Rs.62,53,200/- was made by the AO CPC Bangalore, under section 143(1) through its order dated 14.12.2022 in respect of return of income filed by the assessee under section 139(1) on 14.03.2022. The ld. CIT(A) through its order dated 22.08.2025 confirmed the impugned additions by dismissing the assessee’s appeal.
The assessee was called absent. We have heard ld. DR in the light of material placed on record, who relied upon the order of the lower authorities. We have noted from the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee hereinabove that through grounds of appeal no.1 to 3, the appellant had principally agitated on the premise that the addition was made under section 143(1) in this case without grant of mandatory opportunity of being heard. Through the impugned grounds, it has been alluded that grant of opportunity to the assessee is sine qua non before making any adjustment to the returned income under section 143(1). We have Page 7 of 12 noted that the above averment of the assessee is supported by contemporaneous statutory provisions of section 143(1).
We have also noted from the appellate order, that the appellant had raised following grounds of appeal as available on page-3 to 5 of his order.
“1. That the intimation dated 14.12.2022 u/s.143(1) of the Act on a total income of Rs.50,80,14,680/- and the demand raised of Rs.16,75,36,765/- by the learned ADIT-CPC is against the principles of natural justice, contrary to facts, unjustified, arbitrary, erroneous and bad, both in the eye of law and on facts and legally untenable.
That the intimation dated 14.12.2022 u/s. 143(1) of the Act exceeds the scope of Section 143(1) of the IT Act and is arbitrary, erroneous and bad, both in the eye of law and on facts and legally untenable.
3. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the total addition/disallowance of Rs.62,53,200/- made in the Intimation fat Page 53) dated 14.12.2022 u/s 143(1) of the Act is unjustified, arbitrary, erroneous and bad, both in the eye of law and on facts and legally untenable.
4. Additions/disallowance under "Bonus"-Rs.37,18,678/- a. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Addition of Rs.37.18.678/-under "Bonus" by the by the learned ADIT-CPC in the intimation dated 14.12.2022 u/s 143(1) of the Act is against the principles of natural justice, based on presumptions, surmises and conjectures, contrary to facts, unjustified, arbitrary, erroneous and bad, both in the eye of law and on facts and legally untenable. b. That the sum of Rs.37.18,678/- being Bonus paid before the due date of filing of return but not being reported in Tax Audit Report (TAR) since TAR date is prior to actual payment date, the addition/disallowance of Rs.37,18,678/- made in Intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act is arbitrary, erroneous and bad, both in the eye of law and on facts and legally untenable. c. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the addition/disallowance of Rs..37,18,678/-under "Bonus" made in 143(1) Intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act exceeds the scope of Section 143((1) of the Page 8 of 12 IT Act and is arbitrary, erroneous and bad, both in the eye of law and on facts and legally untenable d. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the addition/disallowance of Rs.37.18,678/ under "Bonus" ought not have been made in the intimation us 143(1) of the Act and to be fully deleted.
5. Additions/disallowance under "Gratuity u/s 43B"-Rs.5,50,209/- a. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Addition disallowance of Rs..5.50,209/- made under "Gratuity u/s 43B" by the learned ADIT-CPC in the intimation dated 14.12.2022 u/s 143(1) of the Act is against the principles of natural justice, based on presumptions, surmises and conjectures, contrary to facts. unjustified, arbitrary, erroneous and bad, both in the eye of law and on facts and legally untenable. b. That the sum of Rs..5,50,209/- being "Gratuity" paid before the due date of filing of return but not being reported in Tax Audit Report (TAR) since TAR date is prior to actual payment date, the addition/disallowance of Rs..5,50,209 made in the Intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act is arbitrary, erroneous and bad, both in the eye of law and on facts and legally untenable. c. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the addition/disallowance of Rs..5,50,209/-under "Gratuity u/s 43B" made in the Intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act exceeds the scope of Section 143((1) of the IT Act and is arbitrary, erroneous and bad, both in the eye of law and on facts and legally untenable d. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the addition/disallowance of Rs.5,50,209/- under "Gratuity u/s 43B" ought not have been made in the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act and to be fully deleted.
6. Additions/disallowance under "U/S 41 of the IT Act"-Rs.19,84,313/- a. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Addition/ disallowance of Rs. 19,84,313/- u/s 41 of the Act. by the learned ADIT- CPC in the intimation dated 14.12.2022 u/s. 143(1) of the Act is against the principles of natural justice, based on presumptions, surmises and conjectures, contrary to facts, unjustified, arbitrary, erroneous and bad, both in the eye of law and on facts and legally untenable. b. That the aforesaid sum of Rs.19,84,313/- being Bad Debt recovered and having already included in the Profit and Loss Account and thereby in ITR- Page 9 of 12 6 fin Schedule BP) and not being particularly required to be shown in in Schedule BP but was reported in Clause 26 of TAR, the addition/disallowance of Rs.19,84.313/- made in Intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act is arbitrary, erroneous and bad, both in the eye of law and on facts and legally untenable. c. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the addition/disallowance of Rs.19,84,313/- made in 143(1) Intimation u's 143(1) of the Act exceeds the scope of Section 143((1) of the IT Act and is arbitrary, erroneous and bad, both in the eye of law and on facts and legally untenable d. That the aforesaid addition/disallowance of Rs.19.84.313/- having resulted in twice addition/disallowance for the very said amount of Rs.19.84.313/-, the addition/disallowance of the said Rs.19,84.313/-made in Intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act is arbitrary, erroneous and bad, both in the eye of law and on facts and legally untenable and ought to be deleted. e. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the addition/disallowance of Rs.19,84,313/- ought not have been made in the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act and to be fully deleted.
Non Credit of: (i) Advance Tax of Rs. 8,25,00,000/- (ii) Self Assessment Tax of Rs. 1,59,59,163/- (iii) TDS of Rs. 3,11,77,269/- (iv) TCS of Rs. 3,684/- Total Tax paid of Rs.12,96,40,116/- in the intimation dated 14.12.2022 u/s 143(1) of the Act by the ADIT-CPC is unjustified, arbitrary, wrong, erroneous, and bad, both in the eye of law and on facts and legally untenable a. That in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the aforesaid total tax paid of Rs.12,96,40,116/- comprising of Advance Tax of Rs.8,25,00,000/-, Self Assessment Tax of Rs.1,59,59,163/-, TDS of Rs.3,11,77,269/- and TCS of Rs 3,684 being fully matched by the amounts as per Form No.26AS, the denial of tax credit for the aforesaid Rs.12,96,40,116/- by the learned ADIT-CPC in Intimation dated 14.12.2022 is unjustified, arbitrary, wrong, erroneous, and bad, both in the eye of law and on facts and legally untenable
Page 10 of 12 b. That in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned ADIT- CPCC ought to have given credit for the total tax paid of Rs.12,96,40,116/- being Advance Tax of Rs.8,25,00,000/-, Self Assessment Tax of Rs. 1,59,59,163/- TDS of Rs.3,11,77,269-and TCS of Rs.3,684/ which is also as per Form No.26AS, in the intimation dated 14.12.2022 8. Charge of Interest u/s. 234B and 234Cof the Act amounting Rs.3,66,63,720/- and Rs.5,02,345/- respectively a. That the assessee denies its liability for interest of Rs.3,66,63,720/- and Rs.5,02,345/- charged u/s.234B and 234C of the Act respectively, the intimation dated 14.12.2022 u/s 143(1) of the Act b. That in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the charging of Interest of Rs.3,66,63,720/- and Rs.5,02,345/-u/s.234B and 234C of the Act respectively in the intimation dated 14.12.2022 u/s 143(1) of the Act is uncalled for, arbitrary, erroneous, wrong and bad in law.
9. That the appellant craves leave to add, supplement, modify the ground here-in-above before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.
We have also noted that ld. CIT(A) while adjudicating the impugned grounds has for grounds of appeal nos.1 to 3 has observed as under:-
“…..Ground Nos. 1 to 3: These three grounds are general in nature…”
7. Thus, we have noted that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed appellant’s ground of appeal no.1 to 3 raised before him as “general in nature…”. The impugned conclusion of the ld. First Appellate Authority is not conformity with the facts on records. A perusal of grounds of appeal nos. 1 to 3 raised by the appellant assessee before the ld. CIT(A) extracted hereinabove clearly allude that the grounds were not general and deserved a reasoned adjudication. Thus, the impugned action of ld. CIT(A) alludes and establishes a non-adjudication of ground of appeal. We therefore are of the considered view that and ends of justice would be met if the matter is remitted back to the ld. CIT(A) for re-
Page 11 of 12 adjudication of appellant’s appeal. Accordingly, we set-aside the order of the ld.
CIT(A) and direct him to re-adjudicate the appeal de novo, in accordance with law, and by passing a speaking order. Due opportunity of being heard shall be given to the assessee who in turn shall cooperate with statutory notices of the First Appellate Authority.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 11th March, 2026.