RENU GOYAL,GWALIOR vs. JCIT- RANGE -2, GWALIOR

ORDER PER : SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal has been preferred by assessee against the impugned order dated 08.04.2024 passed in Appeal No. CIT A), Gwalior10887/2014-15 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 2011-12, wherein the ld. CIT(Appeals) has dismissed assessee’s first appeal ex parte.

Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny. Statutory notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire were issued to the assessee, asking the assessee to explain as to why the income shown by her under the head ‘income from long term capital gains’ on account of sale of part of land at Banmore be not treated as her income from ‘business or profession. After considering the submissions of assessee, learned Assessing Officer made an addition of assessee’s profit of Rs.71,10,842/- on sale of plots of land, treating the same as business income and assessed total income of assessee at Rs.53,04,360/-, vide assessment order dated 30.01.2014 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act.

“Ground No. 1:- On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned CIT (Appeal) was not justified in dismissing the appeal without considering the detailed submission made on grounds of appeal made before the CIT (Appeal) Gwalior in 2 | P a g e violation of natural justice. The addition of Rs. 5304362 made in income be deleted and computation of income including the brought forward losses as shown in the return be accepted. Ground No. 2: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case it is prayed That the appeal matter may Kindly be decided on the basis of detailed submission made before the CIT (Appeal) Gwalior or restored back to the Learned CIT (Appeal) to adjudicate the appeal afresh after affording opportunity to the assessee Lady or in the alternative the hon'ble tribunal may be pleased to adjudicate the appeal after considering assessee's submission including additional evidence (as prayed before the hon'ble court). …………….”

5. Perused the record. None responded on behalf of the appellant assessee. Heard learned Sr. DR for revenue.

6. It transpires from the perusal of the impugned order that the assessee did not file any submission in response to notices issued by the first appellate authority on 25.10.2021 and 24.01.2024. It is, however, noticed that learned CIT(Appeals) 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. It is well settled principle that the ‘reason’ is the life of law. It is that filament that injects soul to the order. Absence of analysis, not only evinces non-application of mind but also mummifies the core spirit of the order. Keeping, the well settled principle that no litigant should be condemned unheard in view, we deem it just and appropriate to remit the matter back to the file of learned CIT(A) for adjudication afresh on merits 3 | P a g e after affording opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 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 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. It is made clear that we have not made any observation in respect of the merits of the case. The appeal is, thus, liable to be allowed for statistical purposes.

The impugned order dated 08.04.2024 is set aside.

Order pronounced in the open court on 26.11.2025.