MR.LAKHAN,AGRA vs. ITO 2(1)(1), AGRA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to respond to notices from the CIT(Appeals) and also failed to make submissions before the Assessing Officer. However, the CIT(Appeals) was expected to provide reasons for the decision. The Tribunal found it appropriate to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.
What were the facts?
The assessee preferred an appeal against the order of the CIT(Appeals) which confirmed an addition of Rs. 48,45,825/- made in the assessment order. The assessee argued that the CIT(Appeals) passed the order ex parte without affording adequate opportunity and without following principles of natural justice.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(Appeals) erred in passing an ex-parte order without affording adequate opportunity to the assessee, and whether principles of natural justice were violated.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA BENCH, AGRA
Before: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL
ORDER
Per Sunil Kumar Singh, Judicial Member:
This appeal has been preferred by assessee against the impugned order dated 21.08.2023 (communication of order on 06.02.2025) passed in Appeal No. CIT (Appeals) 2, AGRA/10340/2019-20 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 learned CIT(Appeals) has confirmed the addition of Rs.48,45,825/- made vide assessment order dated 14.11.2019 passed u/s. 147/144 of the Act and dismissed assessee’s first appeal.
This appeal has been filed on the ground, in addition to other grounds, that the ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in passing the impugned order without affording proper and adequate opportunity to the appellant/assessee to defend his case.
Perused the records and heard the ld. Representative for the assessee and the learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue.
Learned AR of the assessee submitted that the ld. CIT(Appeals) has not followed the principles of natural justice while dismissing the appeal of the assessee ex parte.
Learned DR has supported the impugned order.
Perusal of the impugned order shows that the assessee did not respond to the notices dated 28.07.2021, 04.11.2022 and 11.07.2023 issued by the first appellate authority, resulting in passing ex parte impugned order. The learned CIT(Appeals), however, 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. This apart, we also notice that the assessee also failed to make submissions before the Assessing Officer resulting in passing assessment u/s. 144/147 of the Act. For want of assessee’s explanation, nature and source of cash deposit of Rs.48,45,825/- could not be verified. In the circumstances and in the interest of justice and fair play, we deem it just and appropriate to remit the 2 | P a g e matter back to the file of learned Assessing Officer for framing the assessment order afresh after seeking explanation of the assessee as to the nature and source of the cash deposit in the bank account.. We order accordingly. We further direct the assessee to be diligent and cooperative in attending the assessment proceedings and making submissions before the Assessing Officer for the expeditious and effective disposal. Assessee shall refrain from seeking any adjournment but for compelling and unavoidable reasons. 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.
In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. The impugned order dated 21.08.2023 is set aside.
Order pronounced in the open court on 29.05.2025.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Basudev Logistics, Jagatsinghpur vs. Principal Commissioner, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Prabhudatta Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods And Services Tax, OdishaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Rajesh Kumar Gupta vs. Joint Commissioner Of GST (Appeal), Territorial Range, BolangirOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Attitude Exim PVT. LTD., Rourkela vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S.Pradeep Kumar Mahapatra, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent Bhubaneswar-Iii Circle, CGST Range, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026