RAVDEEP SINGH,CHANDIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-4, PATIALA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 858/CHANDI/2025Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 September 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to adhere to the mandatory procedure under Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, which requires formulating points of dispute and recording reasons for the conclusion. Therefore, the ex-parte order was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) which dismissed the appeal ex-parte for want of prosecution. The CIT(A) had observed that notices were issued but not responded to by the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte for want of prosecution without following the mandatory procedure under Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DIVISION BENCH, ‘B’ CHANDIGARH

Before: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL

For Appellant: Shri T.N.Singla, CA
For Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT Sr.DR
Hearing: 10.09.2025Pronounced: 22.09.2025

O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, VP The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘the CIT (A)’] dated 31.10.2023 passed for assessment year 2017- 18. 2. The assessee has taken nine grounds of appeal, out of which under Ground No.2, assessee has pleaded that ld.CIT (Appeals) has erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte for want of prosecution. A.Y.2017-18 2

3. In Ground No. 3 and 4, he has challenged addition of Rs.10,41,500/-.

1.

4. With the assistance of ld. Representative, we find that ld. First Appellate Authority has dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution by observing that number of notices have been issued but the assessee did not respond to the notices. However, if sub- section (6) of Section 250 is being perused, then it provides that ld.CIT (Appeals) has to formulate the points in dispute and thereafter record reasons in support of his conclusion on those points. Thus, ld.CIT (Appeals) has failed to adhere the mandatory procedure contemplated in Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and restore this appeal to the file of ld.CIT (Appeals) for fresh adjudication on merit. The assessee is directed to intimate his latest address alongwith e-mail etc. so that notice could be served upon him.

5.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →