ISRAIL,CHITRAKOOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BANDA

PDF

ITA 30/ALLD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad05 June 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA (Accountant Member), SHRI SUBHASH MALGURIA (Judicial Member)3 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

Facts

The assessee, Israil, did not file an Income Tax Return for AY 2017-18. Information revealed a substantial cash deposit of Rs. 31,54,300 during demonetization, leading the AO to complete a best judgment assessment under section 144, adding Rs. 4,08,000 under section 69A. The CIT(A) subsequently dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte on 07/02/2024, prompting the present appeal to the ITAT, which was filed with condoned delay.

Held

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal ex-parte without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee and by failing to pass a speaking order on merits, which violates Section 250(6) of the IT Act. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard and passing a speaking order in accordance with law.

Key Issues

Whether the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal ex-parte without affording due opportunity and failed to pass a speaking order on merits as required by Section 250(6) of the IT Act.

Sections Cited

Section 253(3) of IT Act, Section 144 of the Act, Section 69A of the Act, Section 250(6) of the Act

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ALLAHABAD BENCH “SMC”, ALLAHABAD

Before: SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA & SHRI SUBHASH MALGURIA

This appeal vide 2017-18 against impugned appellate order dated 07/02/2024 (DIN & Order No.ITBA/APL/S/250/2023- 24/1060608080(1) of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)” for short].

This appeal has been filed by the assessee, beyond time limit prescribed under section 253(3) of IT Act. The assessee has submitted application for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal pleading that the delay was unintentional and beyond the control of the assessee and has requested to admit the appeal for hearing. The learned Sr. Departmental Representative for Revenue did not express any objection to assessee’s application for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. In view of the foregoing, and in specific facts and circumstances of the present appeal before us, the delay in filing of this appeal is condoned; and the appeal is admitted for hearing.

The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual. The assessee has not filed his return of income for the year under consideration. On the basis of information gathered during the phase of online verification, the Department gathered a list of assessees who had deposited substantial cash in bank account during the demonetization period but have not filed income tax return. The data revealed that the assessee had deposited cash amounting to Rs.31,54,300/-. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 144 of the Act and assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs.4,08,000/- and made addition of Rs.4,08,000/- under section 69A of the Act. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal against the assessment order in the office of learned CIT(A). Vide order dated 07/02/2024, the assessee’s appeal was dismissed by the learned ADDL/JCIT(A) ex-parte. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the aforesaid impugned appellate order dated 07/02/2024 passed by the learned ADDL/JCIT(A).

During the course of hearing, the assessee was represented by none. In the absence of any representation from assessee’s side, we heard learned Sr. D.R., who relied on the orders of the authorities below. On perusal of records, it is seen that that the Assessing Officer as well as learned CIT(A) have passed order without affording sufficient time and opportunity to the assessee. It is also noted that the learned CIT(A) failed to pass a speaking order on merits and dismissed the assessee’s appeal in a summary manner in violation of the provisions u/s 250(6) of the Act. The learned CIT(A) is duty bound u/s 250(6) of the IT Act to pass a speaking order on various grounds of appeal, on merits, but learned CIT(A) failed to do so. The learned Sr. Departmental Representative for the Revenue left the matter to the discretion of the Bench.