PRITAM JAISWAL,DUMKA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(1), DEOGHAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 484/RAN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi17 November 2025AY 2018-2019Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma (Judicial Member), Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee could not properly represent their case before the CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal without considering its merits. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal remanded the issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, directing a reasonable opportunity for the assessee to be heard and to present their case, with a speaking order to follow.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an individual, declared income for AY 2018-19 but the AO disallowed a deduction of Rs.52,33,425/- claimed under section 57, initiating penalty proceedings under section 270A. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal due to non-compliance without adjudicating on the merits. The assessee then appealed to the Tribunal.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal due to non-compliance without addressing the merits of the disallowance under section 57; whether the case should be remanded for fresh adjudication to provide a fair hearing.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 57,Section 270A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BENCH-RANCHI

Before: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

order : November 17, 2025 ORDER Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member: Both the captioned appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the separate orders passed by NFAC, Delhi for the assessment years 2018-19. Since the issues involved in both the appeals are common therefore the appeals are being heard together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. First, we proceed to deal with ITA No.484/Ran/2024.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and declared his return of income for the assessment year 2018-19 at Rs.4,32,890. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment in the case of the assessee disallowing the claim of deduction u/s 57 at Rs.52,33,425/- and accordingly penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act was initiated.

1.

& 485/Ran/2024 Pritam Jaiswal 3. Dissatisfied with the above order, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) but the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee due to non-compliance.

4.

Aggrieved by the above order, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. However, at the time of hearing, we find that no one appeared despite issuing consecutive notices from the Registry time to time informing about the hearing. Therefore, we proceeded to hear this matter with the assistance of ld. DR.

5.

The ld. DR supported the orders of the authorities below.

6.

We, after hearing the ld. DR and perusing the materials available on record, find that the assessee could not properly represent his case before the ld. CIT(A) and the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal by simply relying on the order of the Assessing Officer without going into the merits of the case. We, therefore, considering the facts of the case and in the interest of justice and fair play, remand back the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee to present his case and to pass a speaking order after considering explanations or submissions submitted by the assessee. We also direct the assessee to strictly comply with the notices issued by the Assessing Officer and furnish all relevant documents to substantiate his claim.

7.

In terms of the above, is allowed for statistical purposes.

8.

Since the facts and issues involved in are identical to those in therefore, our above decision in ITA No.484/Ran/2024 shall apply mutatis mutandis as well to ITA & 485/Ran/2024 Pritam Jaiswal No.485/Ran/2024. Accordingly, is allowed for statistical purposes.

9.

In the result, both the captioned appeals are allowed for statistical purposes. Kolkata, the 17th November, 2025.

More judgments on Section 57

All 1,225 judgments and leading authorities on Section 57 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →