AJAY KUMAR TIWARI,KANPUR vs. ITO CIRCLE-1(3)(1), KANPUR

2017-18 against impugned appellate order dated 15/02/2024 [Din & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1060980945(1)] passed by learned 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 20/09/2017 declaring total income of Rs.1,66,97,430/-. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment and passed assessment order on 25/12/2019 u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” for short) determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.5,10,27,430/- by making addition of Rs.1,40,45,000/- under section 68 of the Act and Rs.2,02,85,000/- under section 69A of the Act. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal against the assessment order in the office of learned CIT(A). Vide order dated 23/02/2024, the assessee’s appeal was dismissed by the learned CIT(A) for non prosecution.

(C) Being aggrieved, the assessee has filed the present appeal in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal against the aforesaid impugned appellate order of learned CIT(A). In the course of appellate proceedings in ITAT learned A.R. for the assessee submitted that the learned CIT(A) has passed order without affording sufficient time and opportunity to the assessee. The learned AR for the assessee further submitted that the 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. In view of the foregoing, learned AR for the assessee submitted, the impugned order of learned CIT(A) should be set aside and the issues in dispute should be restored to the file of learned CIT(A) with the direction to pass fresh order in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The learned Sr. D.R. for the Revenue left the matter to the discretion of the Bench.

(D) We have heard both sides. We have perused materials on record. 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 in limine for non-compliance on the part of the appellant. The reliance by learned CIT(A) on CIT vs. Multiplan India Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Del) and Estate of Late Tukoji Rao Holker vs. CWT 223 ITR 480 (MP) is misplaced in view of unambiguous provisions of section 250(6) of the I.T. Act which require CIT(A) to pass speaking order on merits whether or not there was any attendance or non compliance to the notices, on the part of the appellant assessee. In view of the foregoing, we set aside the impugned appellate order dated 15/02/2024 to the file of learned CIT(A) and we direct the learned CIT(A) to pass de novo speaking order in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

(F) In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

(Order pronounced in the open court on 12/08/2025)