Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) against an order passed by the AO under Section 147 read with Sections 144 and 144B for AY 2016-17. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte as the assessee failed to respond to notices during appellate proceedings, leading the assessee to file an appeal before the ITAT.
Held
The ITAT found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex-parte without adjudicating several legal grounds raised by the assessee, which violates the mandate of Section 250(6). Consequently, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for de novo adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to pass a speaking order after affording the assessee an opportunity of being heard.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without adjudicating legal grounds challenging the reassessment proceedings and the jurisdiction of the AO; and whether the additions made under Section 69A and 'income from other sources' were justified.
Sections Cited
147, 144, 144B, 148A(b), 148A(d), 250(6), 69A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘ DB-A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad
Before: Shri Ravish SoodShri Madhusudan Sawdia
(िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri Mukund Das Heda Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 8 (1) PAN:AANPH6899M Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा��रती �ारा/Assessee by: Advocate Abhinay Reddy appeared for C.A S. Srinivas राज� व �ारा/Revenue by:: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 03/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 07/11/2025 आदेश/ORDER Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This appeal is filed by Shri Mukund Das Heda (“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 04.03.2025 for the A.Y. 2016-17.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against the order passed by the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) under section 147 read with Page 2 of 6 sections 144 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) dated 16.03.2024 for the Assessment Year 2016–17. However, the assessee could not respond to the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) during the course of appellate proceedings. Consequently, the Ld. CIT(A) proceeded ex-parte and dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee.
4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee preferred the present appeal before this Tribunal. At the time of hearing, the assessee filed an adjournment petition seeking time. However, considering the facts of the case, without accepting the adjournment petition, we proceeded to adjudicate the issue on the basis of material available on record. In this regard, we have gone through the grounds raised by the assessee before the Ld. CIT (A) which is placed at page no.3 of the order of the Ld. CIT(A), which is to the following effect:
On perusal of the above, we observed that the assessee had raised several grounds of appeal before the first appellate authority, including certain legal grounds challenging the validity of the reassessment proceedings. We have also gone through the adjudication made by the Ld. CIT (A) which is placed at para no.4.2 of the order of the Ld. CIT (A), which is to the following effect:
6. On perusal of the above, we find that the legal grounds raised by the assessee before the Ld. CIT (A) have not been adjudicated at all. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte without recording any findings on merits on each of the grounds raised by the assessee. As per the mandate of section 250(6) of the Act, it is obligatory for the Ld. CIT(A) to dispose of each appeal by passing a speaking order, stating the points for determination, the decision thereon, and the reasons for such decision. Non- adjudication of specific grounds raised by the assessee amounts to violation of section 250(6) of the Act and denial of effective appellate remedy.
During the course of hearing, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) fairly accepted to the observations of the Bench that certain grounds raised
before the Ld. CIT(A) were not adjudicated.
8. In view of the above facts, and in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file with a direction to adjudicate the appeal afresh on merits by passing a speaking and reasoned order in accordance with law. The Ld. CIT(A) shall afford due opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who shall be at liberty to file necessary submissions and evidences in support of his claims. At the same time, the assessee is also directed not to seek unnecessary adjournments and to cooperate in the disposal of the appeal. Accordingly, the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is set aside, and the matter is restored to his file for de novo adjudication.