Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee appealed against the order of the CIT(A) which was passed ex-parte without affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The CIT(A) confirmed an addition of Rs. 48,00,000/- related to the difference between stamp duty value and actual purchase value of property.
Held
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without giving any findings on merit. To uphold the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the CIT(A).
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing and without deciding the appeal on merits.
Sections Cited
250, 56(2)(vii)(b)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CHANDIGARH BENCH, ‘B’, CHANDIGARH
Before: SHRI LALIET KUMAR & SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY
सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing : 06.01.2026 उदघोषणा क� तार�ख/Date of Pronouncement : 19.01.2026 01.2026 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, AM :
Appeal in this case has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 24.12.2024 passed by the Ld. Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi.
The grounds raised are as under:-
303-Chd-2025 2
That on the facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, Worthy CIT(A). NFAC in Appeal No. CIT (A), Chandigarh- 1/10688/2016-17 has erred in passing order dtd. 24.12.2024 in contravention of provisions of S. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "Act").
2. That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, Worthy CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 48,00,000/- made by Ld. AO on account of difference in stamp duty value and actual purchase value even when the actual purchase value of property was genuine u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act.
That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, the orders passed by Ld. AO and then by Worthy CIT(A) deserve to be quashed since the same have been passed without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant.
4. That the appellant craves leave for any addition, deletion or amendment in the grounds of appeal
on or before the disposal of the same.
3. At the very outset, the ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the appellate order has been passed by the Ld. CIT(A) without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. In fact, the appeal order is an ex-parte order.
303-Chd-2025 3
Per contra, the ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below.
We have considered the findings given in the orders by the authorities below and we have also considered the arguments of Ld. Counsel as well as ld. DR. We find that the ld. CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order because of non-compliance by the Assessee. But at the same time, we also find that the Ld. CIT(A) has not given any findings on merit on the basis of material available on record that otherwise he was required to give. Therefore, keeping in view the element of natural justice, we are inclined to remand it back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for re- adjudication after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
In view of this, the impugned order of the CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the CIT(A) for decision afresh. Needless to say, that the ld. CIT(A) will give proper opportunity to the Assessee to present its case and to furnish necessary evidences and details. The Assessee is also directed to present its case before the Ld.
303-Chd-2025 4