ROGI KALYAN SAMITI CIVIL ASPATAL MORAR,MALL ROAD MORAR vs. ITO EXEMPTION, GWALIOR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 333/AGR/2025Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 September 2025Bench: SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that both the assessment order and the CIT(Appeals) order were ex parte. Since the CIT(Appeals) order lacked substantial discussion on merits and failed to follow the procedure under Section 250(6), the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed a return declaring nil income, but the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 1,71,52,990/- based on best judgment assessment after the assessee failed to respond to notices. The CIT(Appeals) dismissed the assessee's first appeal ex parte.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(Appeals) erred in sustaining additions without affording a proper opportunity of hearing and whether the ex parte orders of both lower authorities were justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 144,Section 144B,Section 250,Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA BENCH, AGRA

Before: SHRI M. BALAGANESH & SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH

Hearing: 18.09.2025Pronounced: 29.09.2025

ORDER PER : SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal has been preferred by assessee against the impugned order dated 18.12.2024 passed in Appeal No. NFAC/2019-20/10195818 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 2020-21, wherein learned CIT(Appeals) has dismissed assessee’s first appeal ex parte.

2.

At the very outset, it is noticed that this appeal is delayed by about 120 days. Learned AR for assessee has drawn attention of the Bench towards assessee’s delay condonation application, wherein it is stated that the assessee was hospitalized and was not aware of the notices issued through portal. Prayed to condone the delay.

3.

It is well established principle of law that the substantial justice cannot be denied on technical aberrations. The object of prescribing procedure is to advance the cause of justice. In an adversial justice system like ours, no party should ordinarily be denied the opportunity of participating in the process of justice dispensation. Justice is the goal of jurisprudence. Any interpretation which eludes or frustrates the recipient of justice, is not to be followed. The object of prescribing certain time period for filing of the appeal is to expedite the proceedings before the concerned authorities and to advance the cause of justice. In the totality of circumstances, we condone the delay in filing the appeal.

4.

Brief facts state that the assessee has filed return of income on 19.10.2020, declaring total income at Rs. Nil. Return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. Case was selected for complete scrutiny for the reason “large amount deemed to have been applied to charitable or religious purposes”. Statutory notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) were issued to the assessee but for no avail. Subsequently, show cause notice u/s. 144 was also issued, but remained un-responded. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer added Rs.1,71,52,990/- as taxable income of the assessee.

5.

Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(Appeals), who dismissed assessee’s first appeal ex parte in default of the assessee.

6.

Assessee has filed this appeal on the ground, in addition to other grounds taken on merit, that the ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in sustaining the addition without affording proper and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

7.

Perused the record and heard learned AR for assessee and ld. DR for the revenue.

8.

We notice that the assessment order dated 25.09.2022 passed by ld. Assessing Officer is based on the best judgment assessment u/s. 144 r.w.s.

144B of the Act. Similarly, the impugned order dated 18.12.2024 passed by ld. CIT(Appeals) is also ex parte. We notice that the assessee did not respond to various notices issued by ld. CIT(Appeals) on 17.01.2023, 28.11.2024, 05.12.2024 and 12.12.2024. It is, however, noticed that learned CIT(Appeals) has reiterated the entire assessment order and 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. As the orders of both the authorities below are ex parte, we deem it just and proper to restore the matter back to the file of learned Assessing Officer, before whom, the assessee may file submissions along with evidences 3 | P a g e in support of his case. Learned Assessing Officer, after due verification of the evidence produced before him, shall pass order afresh in accordance with law.

We order accordingly. Needless to say that learned Assessing Officer shall ensure the observance of the principles of natural justice. The appeal is liable to be allowed accordingly.

98.

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 29.09.2025.

More judgments on Section 142(1)

All 17,244 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →