ALIGARH WINE SHOP CO,ALIGARH vs. ITO WARD 4(1)(1), ALIGARH
Facts
The assessee, engaged in the liquor business, failed to furnish stock register, cash book, and transport details during assessment proceedings. The Assessing Officer rejected the books of account and estimated income at 8% of the total turnover. The assessee's first appeal was dismissed ex parte by the CIT(Appeals).
Held
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(Appeals) passed an ex parte order without substantial discussion on merits. The Tribunal found that the assessee did not comply with notices, but also that the CIT(Appeals) order lacked proper reasoning. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits.
Key Issues
Whether the ex parte order passed by CIT(Appeals) was justified without proper discussion on merits, and whether the delay in filing appeal was condoned.
Sections Cited
250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA BENCH, AGRA
Before: SHRI M. BALAGANESH & SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 387/Agr/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19
Aligarh Wine Shop Co., 7/283, Vs. Income-tax Officer, Bapu Marg, Patthar Bazar, Ward 4(1)(1), Aligarh. Aligarh. PAN : AAQFA2755A (Appellant) (Respondent)
Assessee by Sh. Pankaj Gargh, Advocate Department by Sh. Anil Kumar, Sr. DR
Date of hearing 18.11.2025 Date of pronouncement 27.11.2025
ORDER PER : SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal has been preferred by assessee against the impugned order dated 31.08.2024 passed in Appeal No. NFAC/2017-18/10045791 by
the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2018-19, wherein the ld. CIT(Appeals) has dismissed
assessee’s first appeal ex parte. 2. At the very outset, learned AR has drawn the attention of the Bench that this appeal was filed on 01.08.2025 against the impugned order dated
ITA No.387/Agr/2025
31.08.2024 by a delay of about 275 days. According to the delay
condonation application, it has been stated that at the time of filing appeal,
the email ID was of Mr. Dharam Veer, who was the staff member of
assessee’s CA, Mr. Sanjay Kumar, who left the job after filing the appeal
before ld. CIT(Appeals). It was only when the partner of the assessee firm
received a call from the office of JAO as regards the payment of
outstanding demand, from whom the partner of the assessee firm came to
know in respect of the impugned order. According to the assessee, the
delay is based on reasonable cause, supported by the uncontroverted
affidavit of assessee’s CA, Mr. Sanjay Kumar. We treat the cause for the
delay as sufficient. The delay caused in filing this appeal stands condoned.
According to the facts of the case, the appellant firm is engaged in the
business of liquor, having four shops in the district Aligarh. Appellant has
total sales of Rs.7,00,82,450/-, resulting in gross profit of 13.60%
amounting to Rs.95,28,286/- and net profit of 0.36% amounting to
Rs.2,53,327/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, assessee
failed to furnish stock register, cash book and transport details. Hence, the
Assessing Officer rejected the books of account and estimated the income
of the appellant at Rs.56,06,596/-, being 8% of the total turnover of
Rs.7,00,82,450/-, vide assessment order dated 13.04.2021.
2 | P a g e
ITA No.387/Agr/2025
Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(Appeals),
who dismissed assesee’s first appeal ex parte.
Assessee has preferred this second appeal before this Tribunal on
the ground that ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the additions made
by the Assessing Officer.
Perused the records and heard learned representative for assessee
and learned Sr. DR for revenue.
We notice that during the first appellate proceedings, various notices
were sent to the assessee on 25.04.2022, 22.07.2024 and 12.08.2024,
which were served upon the assessee. However, the assessee did not
make compliance of any of the notices. Such an irresponsive conduct of the
assessee cannot be appreciated. However, we note that learned
CIT(Appeals) has passed ex parte impugned order without any substantial
discussion on the merits of the case, whereas learned CIT(Appeals) was
expected to state the points for determination, decision thereon and the
reasons for the decision as provided u/s. 250(6) of the Act. We, therefore,
deem it just and appropriate to remit the matter back to the file of learned
CIT(A) for adjudication a fresh on merits after affording opportunity of
hearing to the assessee. We order accordingly. The ld. CIT(Appeals) is
directed to pass speaking and reasoned order. We direct the assessee to
be cooperative in attending the hearings and making submissions before 3 | P a g e
ITA No.387/Agr/2025
the learned CIT(A) for the expeditious and effective disposal. Needless to
say, that learned CIT(A) shall ensure the observance of the principles of
natural justice. The appeal is, thus, liable to be allowed for statistical
purposes.
In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
The impugned order dated 31.08.2024 is set aside.
Order pronounced in the open court on 27.11.2025.
Sd/- Sd/- (M. BALAGANESH) (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 27.11.2025 *aks/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Agra
4 | P a g e
