Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee appealed against ex-parte orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)/CIT(A) for AYs 2016-17 & 2017-18, which upheld the Assessing Officer's (AO) determination of income and reassessment proceedings. The assessee contended that these orders were passed without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard and in violation of natural justice.
Held
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and violated Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as it failed to state the points of determination, decision, and reasons. Concluding that the assessee was denied reasonable opportunity and natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the ex-parte orders of the AO and CIT(A) are sustainable when passed without affording the assessee reasonable opportunity of being heard and in violation of the principles of natural justice and Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Sections Cited
Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘GUWAHATI’ BENCH, GUWAHATI’
Before: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM & SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JM
O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, AM:
These appeals preferred by the assessee against the orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 18.11.2024, 03.12.2024, 02.12.2024, 13.11.2024, 20.11.2024, 19.11.2024 for the AYs 2016-17 & 2017-18.
The facts and circumstances are similar in all the appeals in to 43/GHY/2025 and hence, we will take the for A.Y. 2016-17 as lead case and will decide the issue. The grounds raised in ITA No. 37/GHY/2025 is as under: -
“1. For that the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law as well as on facts in upholding the order of the assessing officer determining total income of? 62,92,399 without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant.
On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative did not object to such prayer made by the assessee before the Bench.
We after hearing the submissions of the parties and perusing the material available on record, we find that impugned order passed by NeAC was upheld by NFAC without looking into the merits of the case by simply dismissing the appeal of the assessee in limine by not considering the reply uploaded by the assessee on the portal. In our opinion, the order passed by the ld. CIT (A) is in violation of Provisions of Section 250(6) of the Act. Sub-section (6) of section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, mandates the ld. CIT(A) to state the point in determination, his decision and reasons in support of his conclusion. A perusal of the order of the ld. CIT(A) would indicate that it is not in consonance with mandate given in the Act. The ld. CIT(A) has not made any analysis of facts available on record, including the
In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 28.07.2025.