RAMA DEVI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD- 8(2), HYDERABAD
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) for AY 2017-18 against an assessment order passed under Section 144. During the appellate proceedings, the assessee failed to comply with notices, leading to the dismissal of the appeal by the Ld. CIT(A). Consequently, the assessment order was confirmed.
Held
The Tribunal held that the issues were not adjudicated on merits by the lower authorities. Considering the principles of natural justice and that the assessment was framed under Section 144, the Tribunal decided to grant one more opportunity to the assessee for substantial justice.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present its case on merits when the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution and the assessment was made ex-parte?
Sections Cited
144, 69A, 234A, 234B, 234C
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘SMC’ Bench, Hyderabad
Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO & SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA
आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘SMC’ Bench, Hyderabad �ी �वजय पाल राव, उपा� य� एवं �ी मधुसूदन साव�डया, लेखा सद� य के सम� । BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (In आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.825/Hyd/2025 (�नधा�रणवष�/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Rama Devi, Vs Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward-8(2), PAN: AGEPD7263N Hyderabad. (अपीलाथ�/ Appellant) (��यथ�/ Respondent) करदाताका��त�न�ध�व/ : Shri T. Chaitanya Kumar, Advocate Assessee Represented by राज�वका��त�न�ध�व/ : Ms Reema Yadav, Sr. AR Department Represented by सुनवाईसमा�तहोनेक��त�थ/ : 03/03/2026 Date of Conclusion of Hearing घोषणा क� तार�ख/ : 11/03/2026 Date of Pronouncement ORDER PER MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, A.M.: This appeal is filed by Rama Devi (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”) dated 08/11/2023 for the Assessment Year (“AY”) 2017-18.
ITA No. 825/Hyd/2025 Rama Devi vs. ITO 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
“1. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) order is erroneous in facts and law. 2. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer ex-party without giving further opportunity 3. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the order of the assessing officer in treating an amount of Rs. 15,99,760/- unexplained investment u/s 69A of the IT Act without giving any opportunity. 4. The learned commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)erred in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer in determining the total income at Rs. 15,99,755/-. 5. The CIT (Appeals) erred in upholding the levy of interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C of the Act. Any other ground/grounds may be urged at the time of hearing.” 6.
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) for assessment year 2017–18 against the assessment order passed by the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) dated 05.10.2019. During the appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee failed to comply with the notices issued. Consequently, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee and confirmed the order of the Ld. AO.
Aggrieved by the said order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before this Tribunal. The Learned Authorised Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that the assessee has a good case on merits. However, the assessee could not properly prosecute the case before the lower authorities and could not file the relevant documentary evidence in support of its claims. It was submitted that the assessment was completed under section 144 of the Act and the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was dismissed for non-prosecution. The Ld. AR prayed Page 2 of 4
ITA No. 825/Hyd/2025 Rama Devi vs. ITO that, in the interest of justice, one more opportunity may be granted to the assessee by setting aside the matter to the file of the Ld. AO so that the assessee may be able to substantiate its claims by filing proper documentary evidence.
Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) objected to the request of the assessee and submitted that adequate opportunities had already been provided to the assessee both by the Ld. AO and by the Ld. CIT(A). However, the assessee failed to avail such opportunities. Therefore, no further opportunity should be granted and the order of the Ld. CIT(A) deserves to be upheld.
We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is an undisputed fact that the assessment was completed under section 144 of the Act. It is also not in dispute that the appeal filed by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) was dismissed for non-compliance and non- prosecution. Thus, effectively, the issues involved in the present appeal have not been adjudicated on merits either by the Ld. AO or by the Ld. CIT(A). The principles of natural justice require that a reasonable opportunity of being heard should be granted before any adverse decision is taken. Though the Ld. DR has submitted that adequate opportunity had already been granted, we are of the considered view that one more opportunity may be granted to the assessee in the interest of substantial justice, particularly when the assessment has been framed under section 144 of the Act and the appellate order is also not on merits. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we set aside the impugned order
Page 3 of 4
ITA No. 825/Hyd/2025 Rama Devi vs. ITO of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of the Ld. AO for fresh adjudication. The Ld. AO shall provide adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issues afresh in accordance with law. The assessee is at liberty to file all relevant documentary evidence before the Ld. AO in support of each of its claims. We further direct the assessee to cooperate in the proceedings and not to seek unnecessary adjournments. Failure to comply with notices or directions of the Ld. AO shall entitle the Ld. AO to proceed in accordance with law.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 11th March, 2026.
Sd/- Sd/- (VIJAY PAL RAO) (MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, dated 11th March, 2026 Okk, Sr. PS Copy to: S.No Addresses 1 Rama Devi, 21-1-587 High Court Road, Rikabgunj High Court Road, Hyderabad, Telangana. 2 Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(2), Signature Towers, Sy. No.6(P) of Kondapur, Sy.37(P) of Kothaguda, Opp. Botanical Gardens, Serilingampally (M), R.R. District, Hyderabad, Telangana- 500084. 3 Pr. CIT, Hyderabad. 4 DR, ITAT Hyderabad Benches 5 Guard File By Order KAMALA Digitally signed by KAMALA KUMAR KUMAR ORUGANTI Page 4 of 4 Date: 2026.03.12 ORUGANTI 15:54:56 +05'30'
