SANDEEP KUMAR CHAURASIYA,FAIZABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 1, NEW FAIZABAD, FAIZABAD

2015-16 against impugned appellate order dated 27/06/2024 (DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1066133352(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 on 31/05/2022 showing income of Rs.1,76,989/-. The Assessing Officer passed assessment order u/s 147 read with section 144/155B of the Act on 17/03/2023 and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.14,06,210/- by making addition of Rs.12,30,000/- on account of unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. The order passed by the Assessing Officer was an ex-parte order qua the assessee. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal in the office of learned CIT(A). Vide impugned appellate order dated 27/06/2024, the assessee’s appeal was dismissed by the learned CIT(A) for non prosecution. The order of learned CIT(A) was also passed ex-parte qua the appellant assessee.

(C) At the time of hearing before the Tribunal, there was no representation from the assessee’s side. In the absence of any representation from the assessee’s side, the learned D.R. for Revenue was heard and the materials on record were perused. On perusal of records, it is seen that the assessment order as well as the impugned appellate order of the learned CIT(A), both were passed ex-parte qua the appellant assessee. It is noticed that learned CIT(A) failed to pass a speaking order on merits and dismissed the assessee’s appeal in a summary manner in violation of the provisions u/s 250(6) of the Act. Under provisions of section 250(6) of the I.T. Act, the learned CIT(A) was required to dispose of the appeal stating the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision. In other words, the order of the learned CIT(A) must be a speaking order on merits of the case. The CIT(A) cannot dismiss appeal for non-compliance on the part of the appellant. The unambiguous provisions of section 250(6) of the I.T. Act require CIT(A) to pass speaking order on merits whether or not there was any attendance or compliance to the notices, on the part of the appellant assessee. The learned Departmental Representative was also in agreement with this. In view of the foregoing, the impugned appellate order of learned CIT(A) dated 27/06/2024 is set aside and issues in dispute are restored back to the file of learned CIT(A) with the direction to pass de novo speaking order in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, and ensuring adherence with provisions of section 250(6) of the I.T. Act.

(D) In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

(Order pronounced in the open court on 28/08/2025)