NARENDRA KUMAR,PATNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(1), PATNA, PATNA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal acknowledged that both the CIT(A) and the AO passed ex parte orders due to the assessee's non-compliance. However, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to adhere to the mandate of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which requires setting out the points of determination, decisions, and reasons. In the interest of justice and fair play, the Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the AO. The AO was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and to appreciate the facts in the correct perspective before passing a de novo order. The assessee was also directed to avoid seeking adjournments unless for a reasonable cause. The grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.
What were the facts?
The assessee, Narendra Kumar, filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal (CIT(A)) for Assessment Year 2021-22. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) passed an ex parte order without hearing the assessee on merits. The assessee explained that non-compliance with compliance dates (20.12.2024 & 24.01.2025) was due to medical urgency and the detection of cancer in the chartered accountant handling the matter. Consequently, the assessee was unaware of the Assessing Officer's (AO) order passed in December 2022. The assessee argued that the facts noted by the AO were factually incorrect and requested the matter be restored to the AO for a fresh assessment. The Revenue, represented by the DR, argued that the ex parte order by the CIT(A) was due to the assessee's failure to attend hearings.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex parte order without providing a proper hearing to the assessee, violating principles of natural justice? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the CIT(A) passed an ex parte order without hearing the merits of the case. Non-compliance was due to unavoidable medical reasons and the serious health condition of the chartered accountant. The assessee sought restoration to the AO for a de novo assessment based on correct facts, citing principles of natural justice and fair play. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue contended that the ex parte order was justified as the assessee failed to appear before the CIT(A) on the dates fixed for hearing.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘PATNA’ BENCH, PATNA
Before: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM
O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, AM:
This appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 27.01.2025for the AY 2021-22.
At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the appellate order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) ex parte without hearing the assessee on merit. The Ld. AR drew our attention to Para No. 4.1 to 4.10 of page 4 to 6 of the appellate order and submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) had fixed the dates for compliance two times i.e. ,20.12.2024 & 24.01.2025. The Ld. AR submitted that the appellant could not comply in the assessment proceeding owing to my medical urgency as well as detection of cancer to the chartered accountant
The Ld. DR, on the other hand, relied on the orders of the authorities below by submitting even before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee has not record his presence before the ld. CIT(A) and, therefore, the ex parte order was passed by ld. CIT(A) was attributed to the failure of the assessee to attend the hearings on the dates fixed for hearing.
After hearing the rival contentions, we find that undoubtedly the assessee was non-compliance before the Ld. CIT(A) as well as before the ld. AO, hence the orders were 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 reason 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. Before the AO also the proceedings culminated ex-parte. 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 AO 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 AO with a direction to the AO to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee as well. Moreover, it is directed to assessee that the assessee should not seek any adjournments unless otherwise required
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 29.07.2025.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sharad Ashok Agarwal vs. State Of Maharashtra Through G.P. And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- Md. Akhtar Ansari, Proprietor Of M/S Indian Associates vs. State Of Jharkhand, Through Commissioner Of State Tax, Commercial Tax Dept.Jharkhand · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Amarjothi Granites (INDIA) PVT. LTD., Berhampur, Ganjam vs. The Commissioner, Commercial Tax And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Mishka Steels LLP And Anr. vs. The Superintendent Of Central Goods And Service Tax, Cx, Range-Ii, Behala Div. And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Gujarat Co-Operative Milk Marketing Federation Limited vs. Union Of INDIAGujarat · 14 Oct 2026
