Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was dismissed ex-parte by the CIT(A) for non-prosecution. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) erroneously stated no adjournments were sought, when they had been requested for previous hearings.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without adjudicating on merits. Considering the assessee's plea for another opportunity and the Revenue's no objection, the ex-parte order was set aside.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without deciding the appeal on merits, and whether the assessee was denied a proper opportunity of hearing.
Sections Cited
147, 144B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “A” BENCH
Before: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar
Viral Malaybhai Bhow- Income Tax Officer, Individual Ward-7(2)(1), 18, Hans Residency, Vs Ahmedabad Next to Gwalia Sweet Shop, Near Samutkarsh Hall, Prahlad Nagar, Ahmedabad-380015 Gujarat PAN: AFYPB0092A (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessee Represented: Shri K.C.Thaker, A.R. Revenue Represented: Shri Saresa Kartik Laxmanbhai, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing : 15-01-2026 Date of pronouncement : 16-01-2026 आदेश/ORDER PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-
This appeal is filed by the Assessee as against the exparte appellate order dated 27-08-2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (in short referred to as “CIT(A)”), arising out of the reassessment order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1 A.Y. 2018-19 Page No 2 Viral Malaybhai Bhow vs. ITO (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2018-19.
The Grounds of Appeal
raised by the assessee are as follows:
1. The learned CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in passing an exparte order and in dismissing the appeal, based on factually incorrect statement to the effect, "It is pertinent that the appellant has not sought any adjournment during the appellate proceedings", when except for the last notice dt.08-08-2025, adjournment requests were made in respect of the previous hearing notices.
2. The learned CIT (A) has further erred in law and on facts in not passing the appellate order considering merits of the case and dealing with all the grounds of appeal, keeping in view the detailed 'Statement of Facts supporting Grounds of Appeal, and the explanations and supporting documentary evidence referred to therein and available on record on the Portal.
3. The learned CIT (A) has also erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal, leaving Ground of appeal No. 1 and 2 undecided, whereby validity of proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act and validity of assessment made u/s. 147 of the Act, has been contested.
4. The learned CIT (A) has also erred in law and on facts in not deleting the additions of Rs.38,25,661/- and Rs.50,00,000/-, considering the submissions and documentary evidence available on record of the appellant.
5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) ought not have passed exparte order, ought to have decided the appeal considering the merits of the case as indicated in the 'Statement of Facts supporting Grounds of Appeal, ought to have quashed the proceedings u/s. 147, and annulled the assessment under appeal being void ab initio, and ought to have deleted the additions of Rs.38,25,661/-and Rs.50,00,000/-.
6. It is therefore prayed that the order u/s. 250 passed by the CIT (A) may be quashed and set aside, proceedings u/s. 147 may be quashed, the assessment under appeal may be annulled and the additions of Rs.38,25,661/- and Rs.50,00,000/-may be deleted.
3. Ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the assessee sought for adjournment in the earlier four hearings before Ld. CIT(A) between 01-05-2023 to 20-12-2024, however not sought A.Y. 2018-19 Page No 3 Viral Malaybhai Bhow vs. ITO for adjournment on the final hearing on 08-08-2025. Whereas Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution without adjudicating the matter on merits. Ld. Counsel pleaded that though the assessee raised legal ground on the reopening of assessment as well as on merits of the case, the assessee be given one more opportunity of hearing before Ld. CIT(A).
4. Ld. Sr. D.R. appearing for the Revenue has no serious objection in setting-aside the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) to decide the case on merits.
Considering the rival submissions, the exparte appellate order passed by Ld. CIT(A) is hereby set-aside with a direction to the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the grounds of appeal including jurisdiction of reopening of assessment raised by the assessee by giving one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Needless to say the assessee should make use of this final opportunity to file all relevant details, documents and cooperate for disposal of the appeal without seeking unnecessary adjournment.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose.