Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed a belated return for AY 2015-16, which was selected for scrutiny. Notices were issued, and a revised return was filed. However, the revised return was not accepted. The Assessing Officer made additions to the returned income based on discrepancies and lack of explanations. The first appellate authority dismissed the assessee's appeal ex parte.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the ex parte order was passed without substantial discussion on merits. While the assessee was non-responsive, the CIT(Appeals) failed to provide a speaking and reasoned order as required by law. The Tribunal held that the principles of natural justice require an opportunity to be heard.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(Appeals) order passed ex parte without a reasoned analysis is sustainable, and if the matter should be remanded for fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
139(4), 142(1), 143(2), 68, 115BBE, 250(6), 253(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA BENCH, AGRA
Before: SHRI M. BALAGANESH & SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH
ORDER PER : SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal has been preferred by assessee against the impugned order dated 11.10.2024, passed in Appeal No. CIT (A), Gwalior/10615/2017-18 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 2015-16, wherein the ld. CIT(Appeals) has dismissed assessee’s first appeal ex parte.
At the very outset, it is noticed that this appeal is time barred by 172 days according to the report of the Registry. However, in Form No. 36, assessee has mentioned the date of service of the impugned order as 19.06.2025, hence, in view of section 253(3) of the Act, the appeal appears to be belated by a single day, which stands condoned in the interest of justice.
Brief facts state that the assessee filed a belated return of income on 26.03.2016, declaring total income of ₹2,51,170/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS due to a mismatch in contract receipts/fees and TDS credits. Statutory notices under Sections 142(1) and 143(2) were issued. Subsequently, the assessee filed a revised return on 12.01.2017 declaring income of Rs.13,51,170/- and claiming TDS of Rs.2,34,213/-. However, as the original return was filed belatedly under Section 139(4), the Assessing Officer observed that the revised return so filed was not acceptable. Further notice under Section 142(1) with a detailed questionnaire dated 14.12.2017 issued by Assessing Officer, went unanswered. The Assessing Officer, based on discrepancies and lack of explanations, made the following additions to the returned income of the assessee:
Rs.10,12,930/- on a/c of mismatch in gross receipts & net profit as per Form 26AS and original return. Rs.1,63,575/- as undisclosed income from other sources. Rs.94,29,470/- as unexplained opening capital under Section 68. 2 | P a g e
Rs.1,13,000/- as unexplained unsecured loan under Section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE. After allowing Chapter VIA deductions, the total assessed income was determined at Rs.1,09,52,440/-.
Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before ld. CIT(Appeals), who dismissed assessee’s first appeal ex parte.
Assessee has filed the second appeal on the various grounds on merits of additions made by Assessing Officer.
Perused the records. Heard Ld. representative for assessee and Ld. DR for revenue.
Learned representative for assessee has submitted that the impugned order passed ex parte only for want of prosecution is not sustainable, as the first appellate authority has not decided the appeal on merit as per section 250(6) of the Act.
Learned DR has pointed out that more than sufficient opportunities were afforded to the assessee, but for no avail. Ld. DR has supported the impugned order.
It transpires from the perusal of the impugned order that the assessee did not file any submission in response to various notices issued by the first
3 | P a g e appellate authority on twelve occasions as listed at pages 9 to 11 of the impugned order. Such an irresponsive and reluctant attitude of the assessee has compelled the first appellate authority to pass impugned order ex parte. 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, more particularly when the appellant assessee had raised 13 grounds in Form-35 before ld. CIT(Appeals), challenging various additions made by Assessing Officer.
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 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,
4 | P a g e 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.
In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 29.09.2025.