Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal against a fair market value determination under section 56(2)(x) of the Act was summarily dismissed by the CIT(A). This dismissal was solely due to a clerical error in appeal Form No.35, where the assessee incorrectly cited section 143(1) instead of 143(3) as the basis of the original order.
Held
The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s approach to be callous and an abdication of statutory duties, ruling that the appeal should have been decided on merits. Consequently, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored for a fresh decision on merits.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in summarily dismissing an appeal due to a clerical mistake in Form No.35, instead of deciding the core issue of fair market value under section 56(2)(x) on merits.
Sections Cited
250, 56(2)(x), 143(1), 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: Shri Sanjay Garg & Annapurna Gupta
Assessee by : Shri S.N. Divatia, AR Shri Samir Vora, AR Revenue by : Shri Arvind Kumbhare, Sr.DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 20/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 27/01/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:
The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of office of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), ADDL/JCIT(A)-6, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] dated 11/09/2025 passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2018-2019. Jayshree Narendra Amin vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2018-19
The assessee is aggrieved against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in dismissing the appeal of the assessee due to some clerical mistake crept in the appeal Form No.35 filed before the Ld. CIT(A). The issue before the Ld. CIT(A) was relating to the determination of fair market value u/s.56(2)(x) of the Act of the property purchased by the assessee.
A perusal of the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A), reveals that the Ld. CIT(A) has not only reproduced the facts of the case, the grounds of appeal taken before him and even submissions of the assessee on each of the grounds, however, the Ld. CIT(A) summarily dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that in the appeal Form No.35, the assessee has mentioned as ‘appeal against the order passed u/s.143(1) of the Act’ instead of u/s.’143(3) of the Act’. This was just a clerical mistake and the Ld. CIT(A), in our view, was supposed to decide the appeal on merits, especially having discussed the facts of the case, grounds of appeal and submissions of the assessee. This is totally a callous approach of the ld. CIT(A) in summarily rejecting the appeal of the assessee without application of mind. This case is an example of the abdication of the statutory duties enshrined upon the first appellate authority. We have come across several cases of disposal of appeals by first appellate authorities, summarily negligently, even without application of mind at all, especially in the faceless regime. The CBDT is requested to look into this type of approach of the first appellate authority in disposing of the appeals of the assessees in a casual and negligent manner and further requested to devise some procedure to fix the responsibility. The Jayshree Narendra Amin vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2018-19 impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for a decision afresh on merits in accordance with law.