Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee company, Sangamam Power Projects Pvt. Ltd., filed appeals for AY 2016-17 and 2017-18 against ex-parte assessment orders and ex-parte appellate orders. The assessee contended that they could not make effective representations due to organizational issues and staff changes.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessment orders and appellate orders were passed ex-parte. The CIT(A) orders did not state the points for determination, decision, and reasons as required by section 250(6). Considering the totality of facts and the assessee's submission that necessary documents are now available, the Tribunal decided to grant one more opportunity.
Key Issues
Whether the ex-parte assessment and appellate orders are sustainable when the assessee was unable to provide complete evidence due to circumstances and whether the case should be remanded for fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
143(3), 144, 147, 144B, 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
Before: SHRI B.M. BIYANI & SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI
आदेश/ O R D E R
Per B.M. Biyani, AM:
The captioned two (2) appeals are filed by same assessee, the details of these appeals are as under: is directed against order of first-appeal dated (i) 26.08.2025 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”], which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 26.12.2018 passed by learned DCIT/ACIT, 5(1), Bhopal [“AO”] u/s 143(3) of Income-tax Act, 1961 for assessment year 2016-17.
26.08.2025 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals),
NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”], which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 25.02.2025 passed by learned Assessment Unit of Income-tax
Department [“AO”] u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 & 144B of Income-tax Act,
1961 for assessment year 2017-18.
Since these appeals relate to the same assessee, are represented by same counsels and underlying facts are similar; they were heard together at the request of parties and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience, brevity and clarity.
Ld. AR for assessee at first drew us to Para 3 of assessment-order of AY 2016-17 to demonstrate that there was a participation by assessee during assessment-proceedings and the assessee filed submissions to AO.
Thereafter, he referred Pages 10, 11, 12, 17 of assessment-order where the AO has made certain additions by recording the details of documents not filed by assessee and ultimately assessed total income as high as Rs. 5,81,23,000/- against returned loss of Rs. 21,95,177/- by assessee. Thus, according to Ld. AR, although the AO passed assessment-order u/s 143(3) but the same is substantially in the nature of ex-parte assessment for lack of evidences.
Thereafter, Ld. AR drew us to Para 2 of assessment-order of AY 2017- 18 to demonstrate that there was a participation by assessee during
Page 2 of 7 & 929/Ind/2025- AYs-2016-17 & 2017-18 assessment-proceedings and the assessee filed certain submissions to AO but the assessee could not respond to the final show cause notice issued by AO. Therefore, the AO passed ex-parte assessment-order u/s 144 and assessed total income as high as Rs. 3,64,66,273/-.
Thereafter, Ld. AR drew us to the impugned orders of first-appeals passed by CIT(A) to demonstrate that the assessee sought adjournments from CIT(A) for filing details/documents but, however, was unable to make representation before CIT(A) due to which the CIT(A) has passed ex-parte orders. While submitting so, Ld. AR narrated that the CIT(A) has simply confirmed the order passed by AO without following the mandate of section 250(6) of the Act which provides “The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision.”.
Therefore, the orders of CIT(A) are liable to be set aside.
Ld. AR thereafter fairly submitted that in past the assessee-company had been passing through a difficult phase owing to various setbacks and organisational issues, including frequent changes in staff and absence of regular personnel to attend tax matters, and that the business activities had also substantially declined. Therefore, the assessee could not make effective representation before lower-authorities. He, however, submitted that the assessee has now compiled the requisite details/documents and is in a position to make an effective representation. He, therefore, made an humble
Page 3 of 7 & 929/Ind/2025- AYs-2016-17 & 2017-18 prayer that, in the interest of justice, both of these matters may be restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication after considering assessee’s submissions.
Per contra, Ld. DR for revenue submitted that the CIT(A) has given ample opportunities to assessee but the assessee remained non-compliant.
He submitted that no single submission was made by assessee to CIT(A) and the assessee kept on seeking adjournments only. He submitted that in the situation, the CIT(A) has rightly dismissed assessee’s appeals and there is no infirmity in the action of CIT(A), hence the impugned orders must be upheld. Without prejudice, he submitted that if the bench takes a view to remand these matters to lower authorities, he would press for remanding to CIT(A).
In rejoinder, Ld. AR submitted that since the assessment-orders are ex-parte, it would be more appropriate to remand these matters to AO and not to CIT(A). He submitting that remanding to AO would enable the department to make proper verification and adjudication. He acknowledged in stronger terms that the assessee shall definitely make an effective representation before AO and also comply with any direction given by bench in this regard.
We have considered rival submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record including the assessment-orders passed by AO and the impugned orders of first-appeals passed by CIT(A). We observe that Page 4 of 7 & 929/Ind/2025- AYs-2016-17 & 2017-18 for AY 2016-17 the assessment has been framed u/s 143(3) determining total income at Rs. 5,81,23,000/- as against returned loss of Rs. 21,95,177/-, whereas for AY 2017-18 the assessment has been framed ex- parte u/s 144 determining total income at Rs. 3,64,66,273/-. From the assessment-orders, it is evident that substantial additions have been made by the AO primarily on account of non-furnishing of details/evidences by the assessee. Further, the impugned appellate orders show that the appeals have also been disposed of by CIT(A) ex-parte for want of representation from the assessee’s side. In such circumstances, we find merit in the contention of the Ld. AR that the issues involved in both years have not been examined on merits with the benefit of complete evidences. We also note that the CIT(A), while confirming the additions, has not discussed the issues in the manner contemplated u/s 250(6) of the Act, which mandates that the appellate order shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for such decision. Considering the totality of facts, including the explanation of the assessee regarding earlier non-compliance and the submission that requisite details/documents are now available, we are of the view that, in the interest of substantial justice, one more opportunity deserves to be granted to the assessee to substantiate its case.
Since the assessments themselves are ex-parte in substance and the additions require verification of primary evidences, we deem it appropriate to restore both of these matters to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. In fact, we see no harm in remanding these matters to the file of AO.
Page 5 of 7 & 929/Ind/2025- AYs-2016-17 & 2017-18 Accordingly, the impugned orders of the CIT(A) for both years are set aside and at the same time, these matters are restored to the file of the AO for de novo assessment in accordance with law after providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
During hearing, it is assured by Ld. AR that the assessee shall promptly furnish all requisite details/evidences, extend full cooperation to AO and endeavour to get the fresh assessments completed in three effective hearings. We expect assessee to ensure compliance of this assurance given by Ld. AR. However, the AO shall be at liberty to grant more opportunities in a judicious manner.
The Ld. AR further agreed that to offset the revenue’s efforts in dealing assessee’s cases, the bench may impose suitable cost which shall be paid by assessee. After a careful and judicious consideration, we impose a cost of Rs. 10,000/- in each case upon assessee. The assessee shall pay such cost to “Income-tax Department” through appropriate challan and shall not claim any credit or refund of such payment. Further, the assessee shall submit proof of payment to the AO during proceeding of fresh assessment.
Page 6 of 7 Sangamam Power Projects Pvt. Ltd. & 929/Ind/2025- AYs-2016-17 & 2017-18
Resultantly, these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes, subject to payment of cost by assessee as mentioned above.
Order pronounced in open court on 27/02/2026