SUDHIR AGRAWAL,ROORKEE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , NFAC, NFAC

PDF · subscribers
ITA 231/DDN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun08 July 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that both the AO and CIT(A) orders were ex-parte and the CIT(A) did not decide all grounds of appeal. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the case was restored to the AO for de novo assessment.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a non-filer, appealed to the CIT(A) after the AO passed an ex-parte assessment order. The CIT(A) also dismissed the appeal ex-parte without deciding on the grounds of appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte orders passed by the AO and CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice and whether the CIT(A) properly adjudicated all grounds of appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B

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

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 30/10/2024 for the Assessment Year 2017-18.

2.

The Assessee is a non-filer of the ITR. An assessment order came to be passed u/s 147 read with Section 144 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) by making certain additions. The Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) which has been dismissed on 30/10/2024 vide order impugned. As against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 30/10/2024, the Assessee preferred the present Appeal.

3.

The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that both the order of the A.O. as well as Ld. CIT(A) are ex-parte and the Ld. CIT(A) has not decided on the grounds of the Appeal of the Assessee and the order impugned came to be passed in violation of principals of natural justice. Thus, sought for allowing the Appeal.

4.

Per contra, the Ld. Department's Representative submitted that the Assessee is a chronic defaulter who has not appeared before the Lower Authorities, therefore, both the A.O. as well as the Ld. CIT(A) have passed the respective orders in accordance with law which requires no interference, thus by relying on the orders of the Lower Authorities sought for dismissal of the Appeal.

5.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. Both the order of the A.O. as well as order of the Ld. CIT(A) are ex-parte, wherein the Assessee has not participated in any of the proceedings. Even the Ld. CIT(A) has not decided all the grounds of Appeal on its merits. In view of the above, in the interest of justice, we deem it fit to restore the issue to the file of the A.O. for de- novo assessment. Needless to say, the A.O. shall provide opportunity of being heard to the Assessee before passing the assessment orderin accordance with law. The Assessee is also directed to participate in assessment proceedings without fail.

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

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →