Loading judgment…
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
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 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 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.