What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted the non-appearance before the lower authorities and the CIT(A)'s dismissal of the order due to non-response without a speaking order. Therefore, it was deemed appropriate to restore the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The assessee's appeal is against an order dated 24-05-2024 by the CIT(A). The assessee had failed to appear before the lower authorities, leading to the dismissal of the order due to non-response. The CIT(A) also did not pass a speaking order.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal can be restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication due to non-appearance and lack of a speaking order.

Sevalal Infrawork Private… vs ITO | ITAT Nagpur 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “DB” BENCH, NAGPUR

Before: SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & SHRI KHETTRA MOHAN ROY, AM

For Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar

The present appeal by the assessee is against the order dated 24/-05/2024, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [for short, “ld. CIT(A)”] for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2016–17. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

“1. Whether the Ld. AO is justified in facts and circumstances of the case in passing the order where the assessee time and again stated that the fax in discharged in the hands of the partnership firm.

Whether the Ld. AO is justified in facts and circumstances of the case in passing the order without considering the replies made by the assessee

3. Whether the Ld. AO is justified in facts and circumstances of the case in passing the order where the assessee cogently explained during the course of assessment that the investment has already been declared by the firm to the department and such investment is thus, being explained already. Thus, such investment is on the record and not concealed from the revenue and cannot be treated as unexplained.

Whether the Ld. AO is justified in facts and circumstances of the case in passing the order making addition in the hands of the partner of the appellant where the tax is already discharged by the partnership firm thus leading to double taxation.

Whether the Ld. AO is justified in facts and circumstances of the case in passing the order making any ad-hoc assumptions and estimates.”

2. Before delving into the factual matrix, it appears that there has been non–appearance before both the lower authorities and ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the order due to non–response and has not passed the speaking order. At this juncture it would be appropriate in all fitness to restore the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication and to pass a detailed order on merits after considering necessary evidences and documents submitted by the assessee.

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 24/02/2026

SEVALAL INFRAWORK PRIVATE LIMITED,YAVATMAL vs. ITO WARD-1,YAVATMAL, YAVATMAL

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments