GANGA PRASAD KESARWANI,PRATAPGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , PRATAPGARH., PRATAPGARH.
Facts
The assessee initially failed to file an Income Tax Return, subsequently filing it after receiving a notice under section 148. The Assessing Officer passed an ex-parte assessment order, levying a penalty under section 271B for the assessee's failure to get accounts audited as required by section 44AB. The CIT(A) later dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte for non-prosecution, without providing a reasonable opportunity.
Held
The Tribunal observed that both the assessment order and the CIT(A)'s appellate order were passed ex-parte, and the assessee was denied a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for a de novo order, directing the CIT(A) to ensure a reasonable opportunity is provided to the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) correctly dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte for non-prosecution, especially when the original assessment order was also ex-parte and no reasonable opportunity was given.
Sections Cited
148, 44AB, 271B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD
Before: SHRI SUBHASH MALGURIA & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI
PER SUBHASH MALGURIA:J.M.
This appeal vide I.T.A. No.142/Alld/2025 has been filed by the assessee for assessment year 2017-2018 against impugned appellate order dated 28/06/2025 (DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025- 26/1077968983(1) of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)” for short].
The facts of the case, in brief, are that in this case the assessee had not filed his return of income. In compliance to notice issued under section 148, the assessee e-filed his return on 24/05/2021 declaring total income at Rs.4,34,690/-. The Assessing Officer noted that the turnover of the assessee was Rs.1,51,89,265/- and assessee has failed to get his
I.T.A. No.142/Alld/2025 Assessment Year:2017-18 2
accounts audited and also failed to furnish the said audit report as required u/s 44AB of the Act and penalty of Rs.75,950/- u/s 271B of the Act was levied for failure to get the accounts audited as required u/s 44AB of the Act. The order passed by the Assessing Officer was an ex-parte order qua the assessee. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal in the office of learned CIT(A). Vide impugned appellate order dated 28/06/2025, the assessee’s appeal was dismissed by the learned CIT(A) for non prosecution. The order of learned CIT(A) was also passed ex-parte qua the appellant assessee.
At the time of hearing before the Tribunal, there was no representation from the assessee’s side. In the absence of any representation from the assessee’s side, the learned D.R. for Revenue was heard and the materials on record were perused. On perusal of records, it is seen that the assessment order as well as the impugned appellate order of the learned CIT(A), both were passed ex-parte qua the appellant assessee. Further, the assessee was not given reasonable opportunity. In view of the foregoing, the order of learned CIT(A) is set aside and restored back to the file of the learned CIT(A) with the direction to pass de novo order in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
(Order pronounced on 10/11/2025 in accordance with Rule 34(4) of the I.T.A.T. Rules)
Sd/. Sd/. (SANJAY AWASTHI) (SUBHASH MALGURIA ) Accountant Member Judicial Member
Dated:10/11/2025 *Singh
I.T.A. No.142/Alld/2025 Assessment Year:2017-18 3
Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. Concerned CIT 4. D.R. ITAT
