Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee appealed against an ex-parte order by the CIT(A), arguing non-compliance was due to the appellant's medical urgency and their Chartered Accountant's cancer diagnosis, leading to unawareness of the AO's order. The assessee sought restoration to the AO for a fresh assessment due to allegedly incorrect factual findings. The Revenue contended the ex-parte order was justified due to the assessee's consistent non-compliance before both the CIT(A) and the AO.
Held
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's non-compliance but found that the CIT(A) failed to specify the points of determination and provide reasons for the decision, as mandated by Section 250(6). In the interest of justice and fair play, the matter was restored to the file of the AO for a de novo assessment, with directions for the AO to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing and for the assessee not to seek unnecessary adjournments.
Key Issues
Whether the ex-parte appellate order was valid given the procedural lapses by the CIT(A) under Section 250(6), and whether the matter should be restored to the AO for fresh consideration.
Sections Cited
250(6)
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.