What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not provided with a proper opportunity to explain the facts. Therefore, the orders of the CIT(A) were set aside, and the matters were remanded back for fresh adjudication.

A search and seizure operation was conducted, leading to assessments with various additions for multiple assessment years. The assessee's appeals before the CIT(A) were dismissed ex-parte in most cases, with the assessee claiming a lack of proper opportunity to present their case.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing ex-parte orders without providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

Subhash Stone Indusrties Pvt… vs ACIT | ITAT Allahabad 2025

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD

Before: SHRI SUBHASH MALGURIA & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Godbole, C.A

For Respondent: Shri Amalendu Nath Mishra, CIT (D.R.)

Hearing: 09/04/2025Pronounced: 14/05/2025

Heard together (5 matters)

I.T.A. No.43/Alld/2019

I.T.A. No.99/Alld/2023

I.T.A. No.100/Alld/2023

I.T.A. No.102/Alld/2023

I.T.A. No.103/Alld/2023

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

This is a bunch of five appeals, pertaining to the same assessee, filed against separate impugned appellate orders dated 12/02/2019, 23/05/2023, 25/05/2023, 23/05/2023 and 02/05/2023 respectively passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)” for short]. All the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of through this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.

The facts of the case, in brief, are that a search & seizure operation was carried out on 03/12/2011 at the residential and business premises belonging to Vaish Group of Cases. In the search action, certain business premises of the group were covered. The assessments were completed in all the above assessment years by making various additions. Aggrieved with the assessments framed by the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A) who dismissed the appeals of the assessee ex-parte in 100/Alld/2023, 102/Alld/2023 and 103/Alld/2023. In the claim of the assessee is that the assessee was not provided proper opportunity of hearing for explaining the facts on the points of dispute. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

Learned Counsel for the assessee, during the course of hearing, contended that learned CIT(A) was not justified in passing the ex-parte orders without providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee and without considering the facts and evidences placed on record. Learned Counsel for the assessee further submitted that in case an opportunity is , 99/Alld/2023 3 100/Alld/23, 102/Alld/23 & 103/Alld/23 provided then the assessee would demonstrate before the learned CIT(A) the reasons for non-compliance to the statutory notices issued.

On the other hand, learned CIT (D.R.) supported the orders of the authorities below.

We have heard the rival parties and have gone through the material placed on record. On perusal of records, it is seen that in these cases, proper opportunity was not provided to the assessee for explaining the facts on the points in dispute. It would be in the interest of substantive justice if the matter is remanded back to the file of the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Accordingly, we set aside the orders of learned CIT(A) and remand back all the cases to his file for adjudicating the issues afresh in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

In the result, all the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.

(Orders pronounced on 14/05/2025 in accordance with Rule 34(4) of the I.T.A.T. Rules)

SUBHASH STONE INDUSRTIES PVT. LTD.,NAINITAL vs. ACIT(CEN.CIR.), ALLAHABAD

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments