Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed a return of income for AY 2022-23, which was selected for scrutiny. The Assessing Officer assessed a higher income, leading the assessee to file an appeal with the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte due to the assessee's non-response to notices.
Held
The ITAT held that while the assessee failed to respond to notices, in the interest of justice, the matter should be remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to be diligent and cooperative, and the CIT(A) was to ensure natural justice.
Key Issues
The key legal issue was whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the assessee's appeal ex-parte without affording a proper opportunity of hearing, violating principles of natural justice.
Sections Cited
Section 250, Section 143(3), Section 144B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA BENCH, AGRA
Before: SHRI M. BALAGANESH & SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH
ORDER
PER SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
This appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated 22.09.2025 passed in Appeal No. NFAC/2021-22/10389332 by the Ld. Commissioner of Income– tax(Appeals)/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) [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.] 2022-23, wherein learned CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s appeal exparte.
The brief facts under appeal state that the assessee filed his return of income for A.Y. 2022-23 on 29.12.2022, declaring total income of Rs. 1,14,25,060/-. The case was selected for scrutiny. The impunged assessment order was passed 26.03.2024 u/s 143(3) r.w. sec. 144B of the Act. After taking assessee’s response into consideration, learned assessing officer assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs. 2,08,98,000/-.
Aggrieved, assessee preferred 1st appeal before learned CIT(A), who dismissed assessee’s appeal exparte.
Praveen Kumar Agarwal.v ACIT/DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Agra 4. Assessee has filed this second appeal on the ground that learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the assessment order without affording proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
We have perused the records. Heard learned representatives for the appellant assessee and Ld. Sr. DR for the respondent revenue.
Learned representative for the assessee has, at the very outset submitted that the impugned order has been passed by learned CIT(A) ex-parte in violation of the principles of natural justice. Prayed to set aside the impugned order.
Learned DR has submitted that assessee was provided sufficient opportunity of hearing by learned CIT(A) on various occasions but for no avail. Learned DR has supported impugned order.
We notice that the assessee did not respond to the notices dated 01.08.2024, and 31.03.2025. Assessee sought adjournment on 03.07.2025. Thereafter, another notice dated 10.09.2025 issued by the first appellate authority asking the assessee to respond till 17.09.2025. The assessee remained unresponsive. The first appellate authority was thus compelled to pass exparte impugned order. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice and fair play, we deem it just and appropriate to afford an opportunity to the assessee and remit the matter back to the file of learned CIT(A) for adjudication on merits a fresh. 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 circumstances. Needless to say that learned CIT(A) shall ensure the observance of the principles of natural justice. It is made clear that we have not made any observation in respect of the merits of the case. The appeal is liable to be allowed for statistical purposes.