Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee challenged the assessment order for AY 2018-19 before the Ld. CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal ex-parte. The dismissal was based on the alleged non-filing of Form 35, grounds of appeal, statement of facts, and assessment order, and non-compliance with notices issued during appellate proceedings.
Held
The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s dismissal factually incorrect and mechanically applied, noting that the filing of Form 35 is presupposed upon appeal registration and an adjournment request was duly acknowledged. Concluding that the assessee was denied a proper opportunity of being heard, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal for fresh adjudication on merits, directing the CIT(A) to consider all materials and provide a reasonable opportunity.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal ex-parte for alleged non-filing of documents and non-compliance; and the validity of the Section 148 notice in light of Sections 151A and 151(ii).
Sections Cited
147, 144B, 69A, 148, 151A, 151(ii), 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘ A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad
Before: Shri Ravish SoodShri Madhusudan Sawdia
(िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Smt. Relangi Lakshmi Vs. Income Tax Officer Sarada, Rajahmundry Ward – 11(1) PAN:BWOPS0229N Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा��रती �ारा/Assessee by: Advocate A Aruna राज� व �ारा/Revenue by:: Shri S. Arun Kumar, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 16/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 24/12/2025 आदेश/ORDER Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:
This appeal is filed by Smt. Relangi Lakshmi Sarada (“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 24.09.2025 for the A.Y. 2018-19.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
The assessee has also raised the following additional grounds of appeal: “
1. The notice dated 22.04.2022 issued u/s 148 of the Act is invalid as the same was issued by the JAO but not the FAO, in contravention of the provisions of section 151A of the Act and hence the notice is liable to be quashed as invalid.
2. The notice dated 22.04.2022 issued u/s 148 of the Act is invalid in as much as the approval was granted by PCT-2, Hyderabad which is contrary to the provisions of Section 151(ii) of the Act.”
4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) challenging the assessment order
Page 2 of 8 passed by the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) under section 147 read with section 144B of the Act for the Assessment Year 2018–19 dated 06.03.2024. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee holding that the assessee had not filed Form No. 35, the grounds of appeal, the statement of facts and a copy of the assessment order and therefore treated the appeal as defective and dismissed the same. The Ld. CIT(A) further recorded that no compliance was made by the assessee in response to the notices issued during the appellate proceedings.
Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. The Learned Authorised Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that the findings recorded by the Ld. CIT(A) are factually incorrect and contrary to the record. She submitted that the assessee had duly filed Form No. 35 along with the grounds of appeal, statement of facts and copy of the assessment order before the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, the observation of the Ld. CIT(A) that the appeal was defective for want of these documents is erroneous. The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee had also filed an adjournment request during the appellate proceedings, acknowledgement of which was received through email on 03.09.2025. Our attention was invited to page No. 50 of the paper book, which contains the said email acknowledgement received from the official email ID communication@cpc.incometax.gov.in. Therefore, she argued that the observation of the Ld. CIT(A) that no compliance was made by Page 3 of 8 the assessee is also factually incorrect. The Ld. AR also submitted that the dismissal of the appeal by the Ld. CIT(A) without considering the material placed on record and without affording a proper opportunity of being heard is not in accordance with law. She accordingly prayed that the grounds raised by the assessee be adjudicated on merits and the appeal of the assessee be allowed.
Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A). However, the Ld. DR could not controvert the submissions made by the Ld. AR and was also unable to confirm whether Form No. 35, the grounds of appeal, the statement of facts and the copy of the assessment order were filed by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A).
We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the material available on record. In this regard, we have gone through para nos. 4 & 5 of the order of the Ld. CIT (A), which is to the following effect:
On perusal of the above, we find that the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the premise that Form No. 35, the grounds of appeal, the statement of facts and the copy of the assessment order were not filed, and that no compliance was made by the assessee to the notices issued during appellate proceedings. We are not convinced with the findings recorded by the Ld. CIT(A). Once an appeal is registered before the Ld. CIT(A), it presupposes the filing of Form No. 35, and therefore, the observation that Form No. 35 itself was not filed is not borne out from the record. We have also gone through page no. 50 of the paper book, which is to the following effect:
9. On perusal of the above, we find that the assessee had filed an adjournment request, and the same was duly acknowledged through email received from the official email ID communication@cpc.incometax.gov.in. Therefore, the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) that no compliance was made by the assessee is also factually incorrect. In our considered opinion, the Ld. CIT(A) has adopted a casual and mechanical approach in dismissing the appeal without sincerely considering the material available on record and without granting an effective opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Dismissal of an appeal on such technical
Page 6 of 8 grounds, without adjudicating the issues on merits, is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the entire appeal to his file for fresh adjudication. The Ld. CIT(A) is directed to sincerely consider all materials available on record and to provide reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and thereafter pass a speaking order in accordance with law. The assessee shall be at liberty to file all the relevant evidence in support of her claim before the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee is also directed not to take unnecessary adjournment and to cooperate in the remand proceedings.
Since the entire appeal is being set aside to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for re-adjudication, all other grounds raised by the assessee are kept open.