SANTLAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MAINPURI vs. WARD 2(1)(2) AGRA, AGRA
Facts
The assessee preferred an appeal against the impugned order confirming the disallowance of expenditure and deduction. The assessee contended that the CIT(Appeals) erred in confirming the assessment order ex parte without affording a proper opportunity of hearing.
Held
The Tribunal noted that while the assessee did not respond to notices, the CIT(Appeals) passed an ex-parte order without discussing the merits of the case, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for adjudication on merits.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(Appeals) order was sustainable when passed ex-parte without providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
Sections Cited
250, 143(3), 143(3A), 143(3B)
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
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA
BEFORE :SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No.269/Agr/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19
Santlal Industries Limited, Vs. Income-tax Officer, 233, Marain Nagar, Mainpuri, Ward 2(1)(2), Agra. PAN : AAFCS4152B (Appellant) (Respondent)
Assessee by Ms. Prarthana Jalan, CA (Adjournment application rejected) Department by Sh. Sukesh Kumar Jain, CIT/DR
Date of hearing 16.07.2025 Date of pronouncement 30.07.2025
ORDER PER : SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal has been preferred by assessee against the impugned order dated 21.03.2025 passed in Appeal No. NFAC/2017-18/10005995 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”) wherein the ld. CIT(Appeals) has dismissed assessee’s appeal, confirming the disallowance of total expenditure amounting to Rs.1,91,41,247/- and
disallowance of deduction claimed amounting to Rs.4,11,91,807/- after setting off of unabsorbed depreciation, made by the Assessing Officer vide
ITA No.269/Agr/2025
assessment order dated 25.02.2021 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 143(3A) &
143(3B) of the Act.
This appeal has been preferred on the ground, in addition to other
grounds, that the ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the assessment
order ex parte, without affording proper opportunity of hearing to the
appellant assessee.
Perused the records and heard learned representative for the
assessee and ld. departmental representative for the revenue.
Learned AR initially submitted an adjournment application, which was
rejected. She later 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 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 to the assessee,
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 also passed ex-parte impugned order without any
discussion on the merits of the case, whereas learned CIT(Appeals) was 2 | P a g e
ITA No.269/Agr/2025
expected to state the points for determination, decision thereon and the
reasons for the decision as 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. 21.03.2025 is set aside.
Order pronounced in the open court on 30.07.2025.
Sd/- Sd/- (BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH) (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 30.07.2025 *aks/-
