Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee initially filed a return of income which was processed under section 143(1). Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny, and the assessment was completed under section 143(3), with an addition of ₹78,890/-. The Principal CIT invoked revisional jurisdiction under section 263, observing that a statutory liability of ₹92,734/- was wrongly allowed and a cash deposit of ₹27,48,500/- was not examined.
Held
The learned CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal on a technical ground, stating that the assessee had selected 'No' for additional evidence and thus could not submit further documents, without granting an opportunity to rectify the same. The Tribunal found this dismissal to be against the principles of natural justice.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal on a technical ground without adjudicating the issues on merits and without affording an opportunity to the assessee to rectify or substantiate the claim.
Sections Cited
250, 143(1), 143(3), 263, 43B, 46A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, PATNA
Lakshmi Mandal, M/s Bajrang Iron Stores, Rajnagar, Chapahi B.O., Madhubani (Bihar) - 847235 [PAN: BIJPM9175J] ..…...…………….... Appellant vs. Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Department, Madhubani (Bihar) – 847211 ..…...…………….... Respondent Appearances by: Assessee represented by : Shri Sudeep Sinha, Adv. Department represented by : Shri Rajat Datta, CIT-DR Date of concluding the hearing : 16.09.2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 17.09.2025 O R D E R
PER SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
This appeal arises from order dated 28.02.2025, 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)].
Brief facts of the Case are that the assessee filed return of income declaring total income of ₹4,02,890/-. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and assessment was completed under section 143(3), determining total income of ₹4,81,780/-, after making an addition of ₹ 78,890/-. On examination of the records, the Principal CIT invoked Lakshmi Mandal revisional jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. He observed that statutory liability of ₹92,734/- under the head “tax payable” was wrongly allowed and not disallowed under section 43B of the Act, and cash deposit of ₹27,48,500/- in the bank account during the year had not been examined by the Assessing Officer.
Accordingly, vide order dated 09.02.2022, the Principal CIT set aside the original assessment with a direction to reframe the assessment. In compliance, the Assessing Officer passed a fresh order under section 143(3) read with section 263 on 10.03.2023, making the additions as directed.
Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A), however, dismissed the appeal on a technical ground, observing that in Form No. 35, column 12 (relating to additional evidence under Rule 46A), the assessee had selected “No”, and therefore additional documents could not be admitted. Without granting any opportunity to rectify or substantiate the claim, the appeal was dismissed.
Dissatisfied with the above order assessee is in appeal before this tribunal stating that the impugned order is bad in law and without granting any opportunity to rectify or substantiate the claim, the appeal was dismissed. Therefore, instant appeal may be set aside to the file of Ld. CIT(A)
On the other hand, ld. DR. did not objected to such prayer made by the assessee before the bench.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The appeal of the assessee was dismissed by the learned CIT(A) purely on technical grounds, without adjudicating the Lakshmi Mandal issues on merits. Such an approach, in our considered view, defeats the principles of natural justice. The assessee deserves a proper opportunity to present his case before the first appellate authority. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file with a direction to adjudicate the appeal afresh on merits, after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 17.09.2025