Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed a return of income declaring ₹2,94,100. The Assessing Officer determined the total income at ₹8,63,000 by adding ₹11,57,190 on account of unexplained investment. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed for non-prosecution.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 79 days in filing the appeal. It was held that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without a proper hearing, depriving the assessee of an opportunity to present its case.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee was deprived of a reasonable opportunity of being heard by the CIT(A) and if the matter should be remanded for fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “PATNA BENCH, PATNA
Before: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra
order
: January 15, 2026 आदेश / ORDER
Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member:
The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 31.01.2025 passed by the CIT(A)-3, Patna u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’) for the assessment year 2017-18.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income declaring a total income of ₹2,94,100. The Assessing Officer completed assessment u/s 143(3) by determining total income at Rs.8,63,000/- after making addition of Rs.11,57,190/- on account of unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act.
Johar Gadly Alias Zohar Mohammad Bhai 3. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). However, the appeal was dismissed for non- prosecution, as the assessee failed to appear or effectively represent its case.
The assessee has now preferred an appeal before the Tribunal with a delay of 79 days. The assessee filed an application for condonation of delay, explaining the reasons for such delay. After considering the submissions and the reasons stated, we are satisfied that there existed a reasonable cause preventing the assessee from filing the appeal within the prescribed time. Accordingly, the delay of 79 days is condoned.
It was submitted by the ld. AR that since the order of the Ld. CIT(A) was passed ex parte, the assessee did not get a proper opportunity to represent its case and place relevant supporting documents on record. It was argued that in the interest of justice, one more opportunity should be granted to the assessee to substantiate its claim on merits.
On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative supported the order of the lower authorities.
We, after hearing the rival submissions and perusing the material available on record, we find that the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was dismissed solely on account of non-appearance of the assessee, without adjudication on merits. The assessee was thus deprived of a reasonable opportunity of being heard. In our considered opinion, in the interest of justice and fair play, the matter deserves to be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, the Johar Gadly Alias Zohar Mohammad Bhai entire issue is remanded back to the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to examine the matter afresh in accordance with law and after considering the submissions and evidence that may be filed by the assessee.
In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Kolkata, the 15th January, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- [Rakesh Mishra] [Sonjoy Sarma] लेखा सद�य/Accountant Member �या�यक सद�य/Judicial Member Dated: 15.01.2026.
Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant - 2. Respondent - 3.CIT (A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR),