What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted the assessee's unresponsiveness but, in the interest of justice, decided to provide an opportunity for submissions. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.

The assessee filed a return of income, but the Assessing Officer completed a best judgment assessment due to the assessee's non-response to notices. The CIT(Appeals) dismissed the assessee's appeal ex parte.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal ex parte without considering the assessee's submissions, and whether the assessee should be given an opportunity to present their case before the Assessing Officer.

Dinesh Chand Kaushik, Aligarh vs ITO | ITAT Agra 2025

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA BENCH, AGRA

Before: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN & SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH

Hearing: 14.10.2025Pronounced: 27.10.2025

ORDER PER : SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal has been preferred by assessee against the impugned order dated 28.05.2025 passed in Appeal No. NFAC/2020-21/10235883 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 2021-22, wherein the ld. CIT(Appeals) has dismissed assessee’s appeal ex parte.

Brief facts state that assessee filed return of income for A.Y. 2021-22, declaring total income of Rs.8,55,210/-. Case was selected for scrutiny through computer assisted scrutiny selection (CASS) on the ground that during the year under consideration, assessee had made substantial purchases from suppliers, who were either non-filers or have filed non- business ITR or reflected substantially lower turnover in ITR. Statutory notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) along with show cause notices u/s. 144 of the Act were issued on various occasions and served upon the assessee.

However, no response was submitted by the assessee. The Assessing Officer thus, completed best judgment assessment u/s. 144 of the Act and assessed assessee’s total income at Rs.16,59,86,605/-.

Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before ld. CIT(Appeals), who dismissed assessee’s first appeal ex parte.

Appellant assessee has filed this appeal on the ground that ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the additions made by Assessing Officer without any material and evidence.

Perused the record. Heard learned representative for assessee and learned CIT/DR for revenue.

At the very outset, we notice that ld. CIT(Appeals) issued notices dated 14.11.2024, 20.12.2024, 22.01.2025 and 28.03.2025 to assessee, who remained irresponsive. Learned CIT(Appeals), thus passed ex parte

2 | P a g e impugned order, dismissing assessee’s first appeal. Perusal of assessment order also shows that due to irresponsive conduct of the assessee, learned Assessing Officer was compelled to pass best judgment assessment u/s. 144 of the Act. Such an irresponsive and reluctant conduct of the assessee is unacceptable, however, in the interest of justice, we deem it just and proper to afford an opportunity to the appellant assessee to make his submissions before the Assessing Officer. The matter is thus remitted back to the file of Assessing Officer for passing order afresh in accordance with law after taking assessee’s submissions into consideration. We further direct the assessee to be diligent and cooperative in attending the proceedings and making submissions before the learned Assessing Officer for the expeditious and effective disposal. Needless to say that learned Assessing Officer shall ensure the observance of the principles of natural justice.

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. The impugned order dated 28.05.2025 is set aside.

Order pronounced in the open court on 27.10.2025.

DINESH CHAND KAUSHIK,ALIGARH vs. ITO, DELHI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments