Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) who confirmed the assessment order passed by the AO. The assessee contended that they were not given a proper opportunity of being heard and that the appeal was not adjudicated on its merits.
Held
The Tribunal acknowledged that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order due to the assessee's non-representation. However, to uphold the principles of natural justice, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with an opportunity of hearing.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without providing a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee and adjudicating the appeal on merits.
Sections Cited
143(3), 145(3), 250, 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, A.M.:
Feeling aggrieved by order of first-appeal bearing DIN: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1071816101(1) dated 02.01.2025 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 24.12.2018 passed by learned ITO, Jhabua [“AO”] u/s 143(3) of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2016-17, the assessee has filed this appeal on following grounds:
2. Ld. AR for assessee submits that the CIT(A) has decided first-appeal ex-parte qua assessee for the reason that the assessee did not make any submission before him despite opportunities given. He further submits that the CIT(A) has simply confirmed the order passed by AO and thereby upheld the additions but the grounds/issues raised by assessee in first appeal requires an apt adjudication by CIT(A) on merit in accordance with provisions of 250(6) of the Act which provides “The order of the Page 3 of 5 AY 2016-17 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.”. Referring to Para 4.1 of impugned order, Ld. AR demonstrates that the CIT(A) has given four opportunities on 29.01.2021, 10.08.2022, 17.08.2022 and 23.08.2022. The assessee filed adjournment request against hearing fixed on 23.08.2022 which the CIT(A) granted. But thereafter the CIT(A) fixed next hearing after two years’ period on 13.12.2024 which the assessee missed to attend. Therefore, there occurred non-representation before CIT(A). Ld. AR acknowledges that the assessee is ready and willing to make a proper representation before CIT(A) if an opportunity is given and prays that the present matter should be remanded to CIT(A) for an apt adjudication.
3. Ld. DR for revenue agrees with the prayer of Ld. AR but makes a request to direct the assessee to represent his case before CIT(A) and do not seek unnecessary adjournments.
4. In view of above submissions of parties; having regard to the principle of natural justice and also bearing in mind that no prejudice would be caused to revenue if the present matter is restored at the level of CIT(A), we remand this matter back to the file of CIT(A) for adjudication afresh, at the risk and responsibility of assessee. The CIT(A) shall give necessary opportunity of hearing to assessee and pass an appropriate order uninfluenced by his earlier order. The assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and ensure participation in the hearings as may be fixed by CIT(A)
Page 4 of 5 AY 2016-17 and do not seek unnecessary adjournments failing which the CIT(A) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly.
Resultantly, this appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in open court on 06.02.2026.