Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed a return of income for AY 2021-22. The Assessing Officer made additions of Rs. 2,34,29,987/-. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal on limitation grounds without going into the merits.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed a cryptic and non-speaking order, failing to provide a reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The additions made by the Assessing Officer were restored back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on limitation without considering the merits? Whether the AO provided a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee during assessment?
Sections Cited
144, 144B, 69C
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW BENCH ‘B’, LUCKNOW
Before: SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA & SHRI SUBHASH MALGURIA
2021-22 against impugned appellate order dated 26/12/2024 (DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1071587981(1) of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)” for short].
(B) The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee filed his return of income for the year under consideration on 31/03/2022 showing income of Rs.6,58,330/-. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment and passed assessment order on 27/12/2022 under section 144 read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” for short) and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.2,40,88,317/- by making addition of Rs.2,34,29,987/- on account of variation in respect of issue of purchases made under section 69C of the Act. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal in the office of learned CIT(A). Vide impugned order dated 26/12/2024, the assessee’s appeal was dismissed by the learned CIT(A) on limitation ground, without going into merits of the appeal (C) During the course of hearing in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, none was present on behalf of assessee. In absence of any representation from assessee’s side, learned Departmental Representative was heard and materials on record were perused. From perusal of records, it is found that learned CIT(A) did not accept the assessee’s application for condonation of delay; but has not discussed the assessee’s case in detail. Moreover, the learned CIT(A) has passed a cryptic, vague and non-speaking order, without explaining the facts and circumstances of the case and without supporting his decision with adequate reasons or convincing materials. There are signs of non-application of mind and dismissal of the assessee’s appeal in limine, in a summary manner, unreasonably. Therefore, we are unable to uphold the decision of learned CIT(A) in referring to condone the delay in filing of appeal in the office of CIT(A). The Assessing Officer has not provided reasonable opportunity to the assessee before finalising the assessment. In view of the foregoing regarding additions made in the assessment order, the issues in dispute are restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to pass de novo order in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
(D) In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
(Order pronounced in the open court on 17/10/2025)