ARSHAD MAHMOOD KHAN,LUCKNOW vs. ITO-2(1), LUCKNOW
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had a statutory duty to pass speaking orders on merits. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s orders were set aside, and the issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer passed ex-parte assessment orders for three assessment years, assessing income significantly higher than the returned nil income. The CIT(A) also dismissed the assessee's appeals ex-parte without passing speaking orders on merits.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) passed speaking orders on merits and provided reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Whether the assessment orders passed ex-parte by the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) were valid.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW BENCH ‘B’, LUCKNOW
Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT & SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA
(A) These three appeals have been filed by the assessee pertaining to assessment years 2013-14, 2015-16 and 2016-17 against impugned appellate orders dated 10/10/2024 (DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1069595676(1), dated 10/10/2024 (DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/ 2024-25/1069595816(1) and dated 10/10/2024 (DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1069596267(1) respectively of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)” for short].
, 722 & 723/Lkw/2024 Assessment Year:2016-17 2 (B) The facts of the case, in brief, are that in this case assessment orders all dated 22/03/2022 were passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 144 read with section 147 of the I. T. Act whereby the assessee’s income was assessed at Rs.80,93,335/- and Rs.1,75,94,441/- and Rs.3,09,16,952/- respectively against the returned income at nil for all the assessment years. The order passed by the Assessing Officer were ex-parte orders qua the assessee. Vide impugned appellate orders all dated 10/10/2024, the assessee’s appeals were dismissed by the learned CIT(A). The orders of learned CIT(A) were also passed ex-parte qua the appellant assessee.
(B.1) At the time of hearing, learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer as well as the learned CIT(A), both passed their respective orders without providing reasonable opportunities to the assessee. He further submitted that the learned CIT(A) did not pass speaking order on merits of the various grounds of appeal. In view of these submissions, the learned Counsel for the assessee contended that the issues in dispute should be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer, with the direction to pass fresh assessment orders in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
(B.2) The learned Departmental Representative for Revenue expressed no objection to aforesaid submissions and contentions of learned Counsel for the assessee. He left the matter to the discretion of the Bench.
(C) We have heard the rival parties and have gone through the material placed on record. We are of the considered opinion, in view of provisions of section 250(6) of the I. T. Act, that learned CIT(A) had statutory duty to pass speaking order on merits of the various grounds of appeal. In further consideration of the submissions made by the representatives of both sides, the orders of learned CIT(A) are set aside and issues in dispute regarding , 722 & 723/Lkw/2024 Assessment Year:2016-17 3 additions made in the assessment orders in all the three assessment years, are restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to pass de novo assessment orders in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
(D) In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes.
(Order pronounced in the open court on 11/02/2025)
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ratul Boro vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- Jashwant Sharma vs. The Union Of INDIA And A4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Jeyarani Shopping Centre vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer -1/The Deputy Commercial Tax OfficerMadras · 14 Oct 2026
- Rohan Tanna vs. Directorate General Of Goods And Services Tax IntelligenceChhattisgarh · 14 Oct 2026
- Dipak Saikia vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026