Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed two appeals for Assessment Years 2016-17 and 2017-18 against separate orders of the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeals due to non-prosecution, upholding the Assessing Officer's order which had made additions based on section 153C read with section 144 of the Act.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was duty-bound to adjudicate the grounds of appeal on merits, even in case of non-appearance by the assessee. Dismissing the appeal ex parte without examining the issues is contrary to law.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without adjudicating the issues on merits, and whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present their case.
Sections Cited
153C, 153A, 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “PATNA” BENCH, PATNA
Sharwan Kumar Daruka, Marwari Tola, Amarpur, Banka, Bhagalpur (Bihar)- 813101 [PAN: AEWPD9770L] ..…...…………….... Appellant vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Patna, Dak Banglo Chowk, Patna-3, Patna-800001 ..…...…………….... Respondent Appearances by: Assessee represented by : Shri Pankaj Kumar, AR 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 Both these appeals, being for Assessment Year 2016–17 and for Assessment Year 2017–18, are filed by the same assessee against two separate orders of the learned CIT(A), both are dated 26.03.2025.
Since the issues involved in both the appeals are identical, arising out of assessment orders passed under section 153C read with section 144 of the Act in the case of the same assessee, except for variation in figures
For the sake of convenience, we first take up for A.Y. 2016–17 as the lead case, and our findings therein shall mutatis mutandis apply to for A.Y. 2017–18. Brief facts of the Case are that the Assessing Officer passed assessment order on 10.12.2019 under section 153C read with sections 153A/144 of the Act. In the said order, certain additions were made, including ₹56,732/- and₹1,00,480/-on account of unexplained credits in savings bank account, thereby determining total income of the assessee at ₹ 3,92,972/- for the AY 2016-17.
Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(A). However, the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to non-prosecution, thereby sustaining the order of the Assessing Officer.
The assessee has now preferred appeal before this Tribunal, raising multiple grounds. The primary contention is that the order of the learned CIT(A) is ex parte and passed without adjudicating the issues on merits. Therefore, another opportunity should be given to the assessee to substantiate his claim.
On the other hand, the learned DR supported the order of the learned CIT(A) and submitted that the assessee repeatedly failed to appear despite service of notices, and hence the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal.
We have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. It is evident that the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex parte, without & 253/Pat/2025 Sharwan Kumar Daruka examining the issues raised on merits. In our considered view, such an approach is contrary to the provisions of law. The first appellate authority is duty-bound to adjudicate the grounds of appeal on merits, even in case of non-appearance by the assessee.
8. Accordingly, in the interest of justice and fair play, we set aside the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file with a direction to decide the appeal afresh on merits, after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to appear and cooperate in the appellate proceedings.
In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 18.09.2025