Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) for AY 2019-20. The assessee's counsel argued that the CIT(A)'s order was passed ex-parte without providing sufficient opportunity, thus violating natural justice. The Departmental Representative did not object to this contention.
Held
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had decided the appeal ex-parte without addressing the merits, which was a violation of Section 250(6) of the Act. Consequently, the appeal was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merit, ensuring reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and advising against unnecessary adjournments. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) order, passed ex-parte without affording sufficient opportunity to the assessee, violated principles of natural justice and Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act.
Sections Cited
250, 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, KOLKATA
This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Addl/ JCIT (A)-8, (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 14.02.2025 for the AY 2019-20.
The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted before the Bench that the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s. 250 of the Act was without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee and as such the order is bereft of natural justice and is liable to be set aside.
2.1. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative did not object to such prayer made by the assessee before the Bench.
2.2. We ,after hearing the submission of the parties and perusing the material available on record, find that apparently this appeal was
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 26.11.2025.