VENKATA PRASADA RAO NANDINA,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE , , RAJAHMUNDRY

PDF

ITA 325/VIZ/2025Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam12 September 2025AY 2020-21Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) against the order passed by the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) for A.Y. 2019-20 under Section 144 read with Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) dated 22.09.2022. During the appellate proceedings, the assessee did not respond to the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A). Consequently, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex parte.4 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

Facts

The assessee filed an appeal with the CIT(A) against the AO's order for A.Y. 2019-20, passed under Section 144 read with Section 153C. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex parte due to the assessee's non-response to notices, despite an adjournment petition filed for the last notice, which was not considered.

Held

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s dismissal of the appeal ex parte without considering the assessee's adjournment petition violated the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication on merits, granting the assessee a final opportunity to present its case.

Key Issues

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the assessee's appeal ex parte without considering a filed adjournment petition, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.

Sections Cited

144, 153C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH AT HYDERABAD

Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO & SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA

Hearing: 10/09/2025

आदेश/ORDER PER MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, A.M. : This appeal is filed by Shri Venkata Prasada Rao Nandina (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Visakhapatnam-3 (“Ld. CIT(A)”), dated 24.03.2025 for the A.Y. 2020-21.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :

1. 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee had filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against the order passed by the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) for A.Y. 2019-20 under sections 144 r.w.s. 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) dated 22.09.2022. During the appellate proceedings, the assessee did not respond to the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A). Consequently, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex parte.

4. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in further appeal before this Tribunal. The Learned Authorised Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that although the assessee could not respond to the earlier notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A), in response to the last notice dated 17.03.2025, the assessee had filed an application for adjournment on 19.03.2025 seeking time of ten days. However, without considering the said adjournment petition, the Ld. CIT(A) proceeded to dismiss the appeal ex parte. The Ld. AR contended that the assessee would not derive any benefit by allowing the appeal to be dismissed in default and is seriously interested in prosecuting the matter on merits. He therefore prayed that one more opportunity may be granted to the assessee to present his case before the Ld. CIT(A), relying on the principles of natural justice.

5. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”), submitted that the assessee was provided multiple opportunities by the Ld. CIT(A). It was only at the last stage that the assessee filed an adjournment petition without filing any explanation or supporting documents. Therefore, according to the Ld. DR, there is no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A), and the same deserves to be upheld.