DWIP JAIN,MATHURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(3)(1), MATHURA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 392/AGR/2025Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 October 2025AY 2016-17Bench: SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had sustained the addition relying on the AO's ex-parte order and had not decided the issue on merit. Considering the interest of justice, the Tribunal felt the assessee should be given another opportunity to be heard on merit.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal in limine without deciding on merit. The assessee contended that they could not appear before the CIT(A) due to certain reasons and sought an opportunity to be heard. The Revenue objected, stating the assessee had not utilized previous opportunities.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee should be given another opportunity to be heard on merit by the CIT(A) after the appeal was dismissed in limine.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA BENCH ‘DB’: AGRA.

For Appellant: Shri M.M. Agarwal, CA
For Respondent: Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr.DR
Hearing: 15.10.2025

(Assessment Year: 2016-17) Dwip Jain, vs. ITO 1(3)(1), 1928-29, New Pani Ki Tanki, Mathura. Mohalla Shekhon, Kosi Kalan, Mathura – 281 403 (Uttar Pradesh). (PAN : ARRPJ3455E) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri M.M. Agarwal, CA REVENUE BY : Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 15.10.2025 Date of Order : 28.10.2025 ORDER

PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM :

1.

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [for short ‘ld. CIT (A)] dated 18.07.2025 for Assessment Year2016-17.

2.

At the time of hearing, ld. AR for the assessee brought to our notice that the ld. CIT (A) decided the issue against the assessee by observing that assessee has not pursued the appeal despite being granted several opportunities and the details are given in the first appellate order and by relying on several decisions, he dismissed the appeal in limine. He submitted that ld. CIT (A) has not decided the issue on merit and prayed that this issue may be remitted back to the ld. CIT(A) with the prayer to give an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. He submitted that there are reasons for assessee for not appearing before the first appellate authority.

3.

On the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue objected to the submissions of the ld. counsel for the assessee and submitted that assessee has not utilized several opportunities granted by ld. CIT (A).

4.

Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We observe that the addition was sustained by the ld. CIT (A) simply relying on the order of the AO ex-parte. In our considered view and in the interest of justice, we are of the opinion that assessee should be given one more opportunity of being heard on merit. Therefore, we restore the matter to the file of ld. CIT (A) and direct to decide the issue on merit as per law, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We also direct assessee to make proper submissions and appear before

the ld.CIT (A) on the date of hearing and cooperate with the tax authorities. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

5.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on this 28th day of October, 2025.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →