SATNAM SINGH,NAI BASTI ALIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(1)(1), MARRIS ROAD ALIGARH

PDF · subscribers
ITA 12/AGR/2025Status: DisposedITAT Agra24 April 2025AY 2016-174 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not respond to notices issued by the first appellate authority on multiple dates. However, it was observed that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without discussing the merits of the case. The CIT(A) was expected to state points for determination, decisions, and reasons as per Section 250(6) of the Act. In the interest of justice and fair play, the Tribunal decided to provide a last opportunity to the assessee and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to be diligent and cooperative, and the CIT(A) was directed to ensure observance of the principles of natural justice. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, and the impugned order was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Satnam Singh, is challenging an ex-parte order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) [CIT(A)] on December 19, 2023, for Assessment Year 2016-17. The assessee had filed a return declaring an income of Rs. 8,44,930. The case was selected for limited scrutiny, and notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) were issued. The assessee remained non-compliant, including failing to respond to a notice under section 144. Consequently, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 144, assessing the total income at Rs. 12,87,310. The assessee's subsequent appeal to the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte due to the assessee's default.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the additions ex-parte in violation of the principles of natural justice, as per Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Assessee's contention: The learned CIT(A) passed the impugned order ex-parte without affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and prayed for the order to be set aside. Revenue's contention: The assessee was provided with sufficient opportunities of hearing by the learned CIT(A) on various occasions, but these were not availed. The learned DR supported the impugned order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA BENCH,

Before: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH & SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH

आदेश / O R D E R

PER SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (J.M.): This appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated 19.12.2023 passed in Appeal No. CIT(A) Aligarh/10144/2018-19 by the Ld. Commissioner of Income– tax(Appeals)/ADDL/JCIT (A)-12, Delhi, [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”] u/s. 250 of the Income tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "Act"] for the Assessment year [A.Y.] 2016-17, wherein learned CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s appeal exparte in default of the assessee.

1.

Satnam Singh 2. The brief facts under appeal state that the assessee e-filed his return of income for A.Y. 2016-17 on 26.09.2016, declaring total income of Rs. 8,44,930/-. The return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. Later on the case was selected for limited scrutiny under computer aided scrutiny selection (CASS). Statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued and served upon the assessee. But the assessee remained non-compliant. Assessee also did not respond to the notice issued u/s 144 of the Act. The Assessee officer, thus completed assessment u/s 144 of the Act and assessed total income at Rs. 12,87,310/-.

3.

Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before learned CIT(A), who dismissed assessee’s first appeal exparte in default of assessee.

4.

Assessee has filed this second appeal on the ground that learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the said addition exparte in violation of the Principles of natural justice. 5 We have perused the records and heard learned representative for the appellant assessee and ld. DR for revenue.

6.

Learned representative for the assessee has submitted that the impugned order has been passed by learned CIT(A), ex- parte without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Prayed to set aside the impugned order.

7.

Learned DR has submitted that assessee was provided sufficient opportunity of hearing by learned CIT(A) on various

8.

We notice that the assessee did not respond to the notices issued by the first appellate authority on 01/02/2021, 16/03/2021, 19/05/2023 and 11/12/2023. It is however noticed that learned CIT(A) passed ex-parte impugned order without any discussion on the merits of the case, whereas learned CIT(A) 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. 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(A) 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(A) 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(A) shall ensure the observance of the principles of natural justice. The appeal is liable to be allowed accordingly.

9.

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Impugned order dated 19.12.2023 is set aside.

More judgments on Section 142(1)

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

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →