Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against an ex-parte order of the CIT(Appeals) which dismissed their first appeal. The assessee filed the present appeal with a delay of 3 days, which was condoned by the Tribunal. The assessee contended that the CIT(Appeals) order was passed without affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
Held
The Tribunal noted that while the assessee did not respond to several notices, the CIT(Appeals) passed an ex-parte order without discussing the merits of the case. Therefore, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to grant a last opportunity to the assessee and remitted the matter back to the CIT(Appeals) for adjudication on merits, ensuring principles of natural justice.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(Appeals) order dismissing the appeal ex-parte was sustainable without affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee?
Sections Cited
250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA BENCH, AGRA
Before: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH & SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH
ORDER
PER : SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal has been preferred by assessee against the impugned order dated 28.02.2025 passed in Appeal No.CIT(Appeal) 2, Agra/10001/2010-11 by Ld. ADDL/JCIT(A)-8, Mumbai u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2004-05, wherein learned CIT(Appeals) has dismissed assessee’s first appeal exparte.
At the very outset, we notice that the assessee filed this second appeal on 02.05.2025 against the impugned order dated 28.02.2025 by a delay of about 3 days. Ld. AR has orally prayed to condone the said delay of 3 days. In the interest of justice, the meager delay of 3 days is condoned.
This appeal has been preferred on the ground, in addition to other grounds, that the ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in dismissing first appeal ex parte in violation of section 250(6) of the Act.
Perused the records and heard learned representative for the assessee and ld. departmental representative for the revenue.
Learned AR has submitted that the impugned order of ld. CIT(Appeals) is not sustainable, having been passed without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
Ld. DR, on the other hand, has submitted that more than sufficient opportunities were afforded to the appellant by ld. CIT(Appeals). He supported the impugned order.
Perusal of the impugned order shows that during the appellate proceedings, learned CIT(Appeals) issued various notices, as mentioned at page 2 & 3 of the impugned order, most of which remained un-responded on behalf of the assessee. Such a conduct of the assessee cannot be appreciated. It is, however, noticed that learned CIT(Appeals) has passed ex-parte impugned order without any 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 2 | P a g e provided u/s. 250(6) of the Act. In the circumstances and in the interest of justice and fair play, we deem it just and appropriate to afford last opportunity to the assessee and remit the matter back to the file of learned CIT(Appeals) for adjudication on merits. We order accordingly. We further direct the assessee to be diligent and cooperative in attending the hearings and making submissions before the learned CIT(Appeals) for the expeditious and effective disposal. Assessee shall refrain from seeking any adjournment but for compelling and unavoidable reasons. Needless to say that learned CIT(Appeals) shall ensure the observance of the principles of natural justice. The appeal is liable to be allowed accordingly.
In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. The impugned order dt. 28.02.2025 is set aside.
Order pronounced in the open court on 30.07.2025.