ARUP KUMAR CHATTERJEE,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 26(4),, KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and not decided on merits due to the assessee's non-compliance. With no objection from the DR, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh consideration, directing the assessee to cooperate in the remand proceedings.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed a revised return for A.Y. 2017-18, and the case was selected for scrutiny due to large sales promotion expenses. The Assessing Officer completed assessment u/s 143(3) and made a significant addition to income. The CIT(A) subsequently dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte due to non-compliance.
What were the issues?
Whether the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) should be set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration when the order was not passed on merits but due to non-compliance.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH KOLKATA
Before: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey
order
: October 27, 2025 ORDER
Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 18.06.25 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘CIT(A)’] passed under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). Brief facts of the case are that in this case, the assessee had filed 2. his return of income on 30.10.2017 for A.Y. 2017-18 declaring total income of Rs. 6,15,590/-. Further the assessee filed revised return showing total income of Rs. 4,50,220/-. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS with a reason 'Large Sales promotion expenses vis-is gross receipts'. Notice u/s 143(2) of the IT Act was issued on 22.09.2019 and served upon the appellant. Notices u/s 142(1) of the Act were issued time to time. The AO completed the Arup Kr. Chatterjee assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act on 28.12.2019 and assessed the appellant's total income of Rs.1,23,67,640/- by making addition of Rs.1,23,77,644/- on account of business and profession.
Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) wherein the appeal has been dismissed by passing an ex parte order as there was no compliance on behalf of the assessee.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the assessee has come in appeal before us. The ld. AR instead of arguing on merits of the case has only prayed that the appeal of the assessee may be restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh consideration by affording opportunity to the assessee of hearing as the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is an ex parte order and not on the merits and also the assessee failed to prove its case before the ld. CIT(A).
The ld. DR did not raise any objection in remitting the appeal of the assessee to the file of the ld. CIT(A).
After hearing the submissions of the counsels of the respective parties and particularly on perusal of the order of the ld. CIT(A), it appears to us that there was no compliance before the ld. CIT(A) which has resulted into passing the ex-parte order by the ld. CIT(A). The assessee did not file any explanation in order to submit any response to the notices issued and the order of the ld. CIT(A) have not been passed on merits rather passed on technical issue. Under these circumstances, we are inclined to restore the appeal of the assessee to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh consideration after affording opportunity to the assessee of hearing. The assessee is directed to cooperate in the remand proceedings by submitting necessary explanations and evidences to substantiate its claim.
Arup Kr. Chatterjee 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Kolkata, the 27th October, 2025.
More judgments on Section 142(1)
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Subhash Chand Saini, Jaipur vs ITO Ward, Behror, BherorITA 36/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Venish Vinodray Lalani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, MorbiITA 197/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Gaurav Jiteshbhai Joshi, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1000/RJT/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Mehra Mac Industries Private Limited vs. The Deputy State Tax OfficerTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- Santosh Das And Anr. vs. Union Of INDIACalcutta · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S Rama Krishna Industries vs. State Of Hp And OthersHimachal Pradesh · 30 Oct 2026
- Smt Usha W/O Shri Tarun vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maruti Nandan Minetech Private Limited vs. The Joint CommissionerRajasthan · 29 Oct 2026