UMA,BIJNAUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER RANGE 6(1) NEW, HAZRATGANJ LUCKNOW
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not provided with a reasonable opportunity of being heard by both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A). Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer passed an ex-parte assessment order adding Rs. 39,92,000 to the assessee's income. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal for want of prosecution without considering the evidence provided.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessment and appellate orders were passed without providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee and without considering the evidence.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW BENCH ‘SMC’, LUCKNOW
Before: SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA
2015-16 against impugned appellate order dated 12/09/2025 (DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025- 26/1080664569(1) of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“ADDL/JCIT(A)” for short].
(B) The facts of the case, in brief, are that in this case assessment order dated 15/03/2023 was passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 147 read with section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” for short)
Assessment Year:2015-16 2 whereby the assessee’s total income was assessed at Rs.39,92,000/-. In the aforesaid assessment order, addition of Rs.39,92,000/- was made. The order passed by the Assessing Officer was an ex-parte order qua the assessee. Vide impugned appellate order dated 12/09/2025, the assessee’s appeal was dismissed by the learned CIT(A) for want of prosecution. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
(C) At the time of hearing, learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessment order was passed by the Assessing Officer ex-parte without providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. He further submitted that the learned CIT(A) has also passed the impugned appellate order without providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. In particular, he drew attention to the fact that the CIT(A), in deciding the assessee’s appeal, did not consider the sale deeds of agricultural land, and sale proceeds as explanation for source of funds for deposit of cash in the bank. In view of the foregoing, learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the entire issue regarding the addition made in the assessment order should be restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to pass de novo assessment order in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Learned Departmental Representative expressed no objection and left the matter to the discretion of the Bench. It is found that the learned CIT(A) has not given due consideration to the explanation and evidences tendered by the assessee; and further that the assessee has not been provided with reasonable opportunity during proceedings before the learned CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer. In Assessment Year:2015-16 3 view of the foregoing, the order of learned CIT(A) is set aside and restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to pass de novo assessment order in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
(D) In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
(Order pronounced in the open court on 08/01/2026)
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Thr Its Registrar Prashant S Amrutkar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr The Secretary And OthersBombay · 19 Oct 2026
- Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Thr Registrar Prashant S Amrutkar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr Secretary And OthersBombay · 19 Oct 2026
- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026