Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal after a delay of 439 days, which was condoned. The assessment was reopened and the Assessing Officer treated an amount as long-term capital gain. The CIT(A) disposed of the assessee's appeal without considering merits due to non-compliance.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by not deciding the appeal on merits and instead remitting the matter to the Assessing Officer. The first appellate authority is duty-bound to decide issues on merits.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was correct in setting aside the appeal to the AO without adjudicating the issues on merits due to non-compliance by the assessee.
Sections Cited
250, 143(3), 147
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “PATNA” BENCH, PATNA
Sharma Nand Singh, S/o Late Ganga Mahto, Chak Musallahpur, Chai Tola Gali, Near Cooperative Bank, Mahendru, Patna - 800006 [PAN: EKYPS6595G] ..…...…………….... Appellant vs. ITO, Ward-6(4), Patna, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, Dak Bunglow Crossing, Patna - 800001 ..…...…………….... Respondent Appearances by: Assessee represented by : Shri Vishal Kr., Adv. Department represented by : Shri Rajat Datta, CIT-DR Date of concluding the hearing : 16.09.2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 18.09.2025 O R D E R
PER SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
This appeal arises from order dated 23.11.2023, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”) by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereafter “the Ld. CIT(A)] for the assessment year 2016-17.
At the threshold, it is noticed that there is a delay of 439 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee has filed an application supported by an affidavit, explaining the reasons for the delay. After considering the submissions and going through the petition, we are satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause in filing the
Brief facts of the case are that the assessment was reopened, and the Assessing Officer passed an order under section 143(3) read with section 147 on 16.12.2019, wherein he treated an amount of ₹81,66,750/- as long- term capital gain and determined the total income at ₹83,37,250/-.
Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). However, due to non-compliance on various dates, the appeal was disposed of without considering the issues on merits. Instead of adjudicating the grounds raised, the learned CIT(A) merely set aside the matter to the Assessing Officer with a direction to re-examine the issue.
Before us, the assessee contended that the learned CIT(A) erred in not deciding the appeal on merits, which is contrary to the provisions of law. On the other hand, the learned DR submitted that the conduct of the assessee showed repeated non-compliance, due to which the learned CIT(A) had no option but to pass the order.
We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that the learned CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the issues raised before him and instead remitted the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer. Such an approach is not permissible under the law, as the first appellate authority is duty-bound to decide the issues on merits.
In view of the above, we set aside the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file for fresh adjudication of the issues raised, on merits, after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 18.09.2025