SATISH NARAYAN SHUKLA,PHAPHUND vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AURAIYA
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(Appeals) passed an ex-parte order without discussing the merits of the case, despite the assessee not responding to notices. The Tribunal decided to set aside the order and remit the matter back to the CIT(Appeals) for adjudication on merits, affording the assessee a last opportunity.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed a return of income after claiming deductions for long-term capital gains and agricultural income. Subsequently, reassessment proceedings were initiated, disallowing the deductions for want of supporting evidence. This disallowance was confirmed by the CIT(Appeals). The assessee appealed this order.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(Appeals) erred by passing an ex-parte order without considering the merits of the case, violating principles of natural justice.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 250(6),Section 148,Section 54,Section 54F,Section 143(3),Section 147
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 22.11.2024 passed in Appeals No.NFAC/2012-13/10149376 by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi u/s. 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) wherein the ld. CIT(Appeals), confirmed the addition made by the learned Assessing Officer.
Brief facts state that the appellant/assessee filed return of income in pursuance to notice u/s. 148 of the Act declaring income of Rs.2,67,450/- after deducting the exemption claimed u/s. 54 and 54F of the Act on the long term capital gain arising on sale of capital asset, and agricultural income of Rs.35,000/-. The said income declared by appellant was accepted by the Assessing Officer vide assessment order dated 30.05.2016 originally passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act.
Subsequently, another re-assessment proceedings u/s. 147 were initiated against the assessee, wherein the claim of deduction u/s. 54 and 54F amounting to Rs.12,22,705/- was disallowed for want of supporting documentary evidence vide order dated 28.03.2022, which stood confirmed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) vide impugned order dated 22.11.2024 passed in first appeal filed by the appellant/assessee.
We have perused the records and heard the ld. Representative for the assessee and the ld. Departmental representative for the Revenue.
Learned representative for the assessee has submitted that the impugned order has been passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals), ex parte without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Prayed to set aside the impugned order.
Learned DR has submitted that the assessee was provided sufficient opportunity of hearing by learned CIT(Appeals) on various occasions, but for no avail. Learned DR has supported the impugned order.
We notice that the assessee did not respond to the notices issued by the first appellate authority on 07.07.2022, 02.08.2023, 02.10.2024 and 25.10.2024. It is however noticed that learned CIT(Appeals) 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 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. 22.11.2024 is set aside.
More judgments on Section 148
- 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
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Arka Business Solutions vs. Principal Commissioner Of CustomsTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Mehra Mac Industries Private Limited vs. The Deputy State Tax OfficerTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- Santosh Das And Anr. vs. Union Of INDIACalcutta · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S Rama Krishna Industries vs. State Of Hp And OthersHimachal Pradesh · 30 Oct 2026
- Smt Usha W/O Shri Tarun vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 29 Oct 2026