SUNIL KUMAR ,LAKHISARAI vs. ITO,WARD 2(5), LAKHISARI , LAKHISARAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 473/PAT/2025Status: DisposedITAT Patna18 December 2025AY 2019-20Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member), Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal ex parte due to non-compliance. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was passed without considering the merits of the case. Consequently, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration after allowing the assessee an opportunity to submit evidence.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to file a return of income for AY 2019-20, despite receiving salary, time deposit, and interest income. Notices under sections 148 and 142(1) were issued, but the assessee did not comply or furnish evidence. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment ex parte.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeals should be restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration due to the ex parte orders passed by the lower authorities without considering the merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 147,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BENCH-PATNA

Before: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey

order : December 18, 2025 ORDER Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member: Both the captioned appeals have been preferred by the assessee for the assessment year 2019-20 against separate orders both dated 22.08.2025 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) respectively. Since, the issues involved in both the appeals are common and relate to the same assessee, therefore, these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order.

is taken as lead case for narration of facts.

1.

– Brief facts of the case are that in this case, 2. the assessee has not filed return of income and had made time deposit amounting to Rs. 21,42,000/-, received salary of Rs. 25,24,897/- and received interest income of Rs. 69,271/- during F.Y. 2018-19. Notices u/s 148 was issued to the assessee and the assessee did not comply to the notice. Statutory notices u/s 142(1) were issued but the assessee had & 473/Pat/2025 Sunil Kumar not furnished any documentary evidence. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 147/144 of the Act assessing total income of Rs.47,36,168/-.

3.

Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) wherein the appeal has been dismissed by passing an ex parte order as there was no compliance on behalf of the assessee.

4.

Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the assessee has come in appeal before us. The ld. AR instead of arguing on merits of the case has only prayed that the appeal of the assessee may be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration by affording opportunity to the assessee to submit relevant evidences to prove his case before the Assessing Officer.

5.

The ld. DR did not raise any objection in remitting the appeal of the assessee to the file of the Assessing Officer.

6.

After hearing the submissions of the counsels of the respective parties and particularly on perusal of the order of the ld. CIT(A), we find that the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is an ex parte order without considering on merits of the case and the assessee did not able to furnish evidences in order to substantiate his case before the lower authorities as there was no compliance. Under the circumstances, we are inclined to restore the appeal of the assessee to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration after affording opportunity to the assessee of hearing with a direction to pass a de novo order after considering relevant evidences submitted by the assessee. The assessee is also directed to strictly cooperate in the remand proceedings by submitting necessary explanations and evidences to substantiate his claim. Thus, is allowed for statistical purposes.

& 473/Pat/2025 Sunil Kumar 7.

Since the present case penalty order has been passed on the basis of assessment order passed(discussed above ) and the same has been set aside for denovo trial hence our findings/directions given above in will mutatis mutandis apply to too. Hence, is allowed for statistical purposes.

8.

In the result, both the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Kolkata, the 18th December, 2025.

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →