MANISH KUMAR AGRAWAL,KATNI vs. INCOMETAX OFFICER WARD-1, KATNI

(A) This appeal vide has been filed by the assessee for assessment year 2017-18 against impugned appellate order dated 03/10/2023 (DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1056730675(1) of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)” for short].

(B) This appeal has been filed by the assessee, beyond time limit prescribed under section 253(3) of IT Act. The assessee has submitted application for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal pleading that the delay was unintentional and beyond the control of the assessee and has requested to admit the appeal for hearing. The learned Sr. Departmental Representative for Revenue did not express any objection to assessee’s application for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. In view of the foregoing, and in specific facts and circumstances of the present appeal before us, the delay in filing of this appeal is condoned; and the appeal is admitted for hearing.

(C) The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual, filed his return of income on 27/03/2018 declaring total income of Rs.2,80,360/-. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment and passed assessment order on 20/11/2019 u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” for short) determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.15,43,360/- by making addition of Rs.12,63,000/- under section 69A of the Act. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal against the assessment order in the office of learned CIT(A). Vide order dated 03/10/2023, the assessee’s appeal was dismissed by the learned CIT(A) for non prosecution.

(C) Being aggrieved, the assessee has filed the present appeal in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal against the aforesaid impugned appellate order of learned CIT(A). In the course of appellate proceedings in ITAT learned A.R. for the assessee submitted that the learned CIT(A) has passed order without affording sufficient time and opportunity to the assessee. The learned AR for the assessee further submitted that the learned CIT(A) failed to pass a speaking order on merits and dismissed the assessee’s appeal in a summary manner in violation of the provisions u/s 250(6) of the Act. In view of the foregoing, learned AR for the assessee submitted, the impugned order of learned CIT(A) should be set aside and the issue in dispute should be restored to the file of learned CIT(A) with the direction to pass fresh order in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The learned Sr. D.R. for the Revenue left the matter to the discretion of the Bench.

(D) Both sides have been heard. Materials on record have been perused. Under provisions of section 250(6) of the I.T. Act, the learned CIT(A) was required to dispose of the appeal stating the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision. In other words, the order of the learned CIT(A) must be a speaking order on merits of the case. The CIT(A) cannot dismiss appeal for non-compliance on the part of the appellant. The unambiguous provisions of section 250(6) of the I.T. Act require CIT(A) to pass speaking order on merits whether or not there was any attendance or compliance to the notices, on the part of the appellant assessee. In view of the foregoing, the impugned appellate order of learned CIT(A) dated 03/10/2023 is set aside to the file of learned CIT(A) with the direction to pass de novo speaking order in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

(E) In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

(Order pronounced in the open court on 20/08/2025)