AKHILESH MISHRA,UTTARAKHAND vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 2(1)(1), HALDWANI, UTTARAKHAND

PDF · subscribers
ITA 113/DDN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun08 July 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without hearing the assessee and did not decide all grounds of appeal on merits. In the interest of natural justice, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed a return declaring income of Rs. 83,32,500. The assessment was completed at Rs. 2,49,45,840 after adding Rs. 1,66,13,344 by estimating the GP rate at 3.5% and rejecting the books of account. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and failing to decide all grounds of appeal on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 145(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI

Before: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

Hearing: 08/07/2025Pronounced: 08/07/2025

(A.Y 2017-18) Akhilesh Mishra Vs. ACIT 12/04, Kalyani view Near Circle-2(1), Haldwani Kanchan Tara Hotel Rudrapur, Uttarakhand Rudrapur, Rudrapur, Uttarakhand PAN: AZOPM1924E Appellant Respondent Assessee by None Revenue by Sh. A. S. Rana, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 08/07/2025 Date of Pronouncement 08/07/2025 ORDER

PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM:

1.

The present appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of CIT(A)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Ld. CIT(A)’/NFAC’ for short), Delhi dated 12/12/2023 for the Assessment Year 2017-18.

2.Brief facts of the case are that, the Assessee filed his return declaring total income at Rs.83,32,500/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny through CASS. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act assessing income of the Assessee at Rs.2,49,45,840/- by making addition of Rs.1,66,13,344/- on account of estimating of G.P. rate @3.5% as against gross profit rate shown his books of account @1.41% by rejecting the books of account u/s 145(3) of the Act. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the Assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 12/12/2023, dismissed the Appeal filed by the Assessee. As against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Assessee preferred the present Appeal.

3.

None appeared for the Assessee. Considering the issue involved in the present Appeal, we deem it fit to decide the Appeal on hearing the Ld. Department's Representative and perused the material available on record.

4.

The Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently submitted that the Assessee has not participated in the first appellate proceedings, therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) rightly passed the order impugned which requires no interference at the hands of the Tribunal. The Ld. Department's Representative relying on the order of the Ld. CIT(A), sought for dismissal of the Appeal.

5.

We have heard the Department's Representative and perused the material available on record. It can be seen from the order of the Ld. CIT(A) , the Appeal has been passed ex-parte without hearing the Assessee. It is further observed that while deciding the Appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) has not decided all the grounds of Appeal of the Assessee on its merits. Considering the facts that the Assessee has not participated in the first Appellate proceedings, in the interest of natural justice, we remand the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the Appeal afresh on its merits in accordance with law after providing opportunity of being heard to the Assessee.

6.

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.

More judgments on Section 145(3)

All 3,640 judgments and leading authorities on Section 145(3) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →