BHANU PRATAP SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(3)(3), KASGANJ
Facts
The assessee, a non-filer, had three cash transactions totaling Rs. 83,77,257. The case was reopened under Section 147, and despite notices, the assessee did not respond, leading to an ex-parte assessment of Rs. 84,97,307. The CIT(A) also dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte due to non-compliance.
Held
The tribunal acknowledged the assessee's non-cooperative conduct but, in the interest of justice, remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) to pass a fresh order on merits, ensuring principles of natural justice are followed. The assessee was directed to cooperate.
Key Issues
The key legal issue was whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without affording adequate opportunity of hearing, despite the assessee's non-compliance.
Sections Cited
Section 147, Section 148, Section 142(1), Section 144B, Section 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA (DB
Before: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN & SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA (DB) BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 581/Agr/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Bhanu Pratap Singh, 4B/5 Opp Sir Vs. ITO, Ward –4(3)(3) Gangaram Hospital, Old Rajinder Kasganj Nag, New Delhi PAN : BRKPS7571N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Anurag Sinha, Adv. Department by Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 18.02.2026 Date of pronouncement 18.02.2026 ORDER
This appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated 16.10.2025 passed in appeal No NFAC/2014-15/10224919 by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A) u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for the A.Y. 2015-16, wherein ld CIT has dismissed assessee’s appeal ex-parte. 2. Briefly stating, assessee is a non filer. On the basis of information available with the department, three cash transactions, totaling to Rs. 83,77,257 were found to have been entered into on behalf of the assessee through HDFC Bank Ltd Kasganj, ICICI Bank Ltd Kasganj and
ITA No.581/Agr/2025
SBI respectively. After obtaining prior sanction of (PCCIT), assessee’s case was reopened u/s. 147 of the Act. Notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued but remained unresponded by the assessee. Notice u/s. 142(1)/ show cause notice were issued to assessee which also remained unresponded by the assessee. Assessment proceedings were completed u/s. 147/144B of the Act and total income of the assessee was assessed at Rs. 84,97,307/-. 3. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal against the assessment order dated 09.03.2023 before ld CIT(A), who dismissed assessee’s appeal ex-parte. 4. Appellant has approached this tribunal on the ground, including the grounds on merits of the case, that ld CIT(A) has erred in confirming the additions made by A.O. without affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
Perused the record. Heard ld AR for the assessee and ld Sr DR for the respondent revenue. 6. We notice that ld CIT(A) afforded various opportunities of hearing to the assessee including opportunities on 28.08.2025 and 26.09.2025. However, the assessee, miserably failed to comply the notices issued by the first appellate authority. Ld CIT(A) was thus, compelled to pass ex-parte impugned order, dismissing assessee’s first appeal. The non cooperative
2 | P a g e
ITA No.581/Agr/2025
conduct of the assessee during the first appellate proceedings cannot be appreciated. However, in the interest of justice, we deem it just and proper to afford an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. We, thus, remit the matter back to the file of ld CIT(A), who shall pass order on merit afresh in accordance with law. We direct the assessee to be cooperative and to make submissions before the first appellate authority. Needless to say that ld CIT(A) shall ensure that substantial compliance of the principles of natural justice. The appeal is liable to be allowed for statistical purposes. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on - 18.02.2026
Sd/- Sd/- (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dated: 25.03.2026 *Aamir Siddiqui, PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Agra
3 | P a g e
