MANTI DEVI,AURANGABAD vs. ASSESMENT UNIT, NFAC, ITO WARD- 3 (4), SASARAM

PDF · subscribers

ITA 572/PAT/2024Status: HeardITAT Patna09 December 2025AY 2022-23Bench: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY (Vice President), SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)1 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee was indeed non-compliant, leading to an ex-parte decision. However, it noted that the CIT(A) failed to set out the points of determination and reasons for the decision as required by Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication with a reasonable opportunity for the assessee to be heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was against an ex-parte order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) without hearing the assessee on merit. The assessee claimed that while multiple hearing dates were fixed, they were not complied with, and they only became aware of the ex-parte disposal upon receiving the order.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) order was validly passed ex-parte without proper opportunity of hearing and adherence to procedural requirements like recording reasons.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “PATNA” BENCH, PATNA

For Appellant: Shri G.P. Tulsiyan, AR

For Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kumar, DR

Hearing: 27.11.2025Pronounced: 09.12.2025

This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 15.07.2024 for the AY 2022-23.

The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the appellate order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is an ex-parte order passed without hearing the assessee on merit. The Ld. AR drew our attention to page 2 of Para 4.1 of the appellate order and submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) had fixed various dates of hearings which was not complied with. However, on receipt of the appellate order the assessee came to know about appeal having been disposed of ex-parte. The Ld. AR, therefore, 2.1. The ld. DR on the other hand did not oppose the counsel of the assessee.

2.2. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that undoubtedly the assessee was non- compliance before the Ld. CIT(A) and the decision passed ex parte. However, in our opinion, the Ld. CIT(A) is duty bound to set out the point of determination and his decision thereon and the reasons for taking the said decision as mandated by the provision of section 250(6) of the Act which apparently has not been done by the appellate authority. Accordingly, in the interest of justice and fair play, we deem it fit and proper to restore the issue back to the file of the learned CIT (A), so that the facts could be appreciated in correct perspective and order is passed accordingly de novo. Accordingly, we restore the issue to the file of the CIT (A) with a direction to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee as well.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 09.12.2025.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →