Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's income tax return for AY 2015-16 was reopened under Section 147, leading to a significant increase in total income. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal ex-parte due to the assessee's non-appearance despite multiple notices. The assessee then filed a second appeal with the ITAT.
Held
The ITAT noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without discussing the merits of the case, violating Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication on merits, directing the assessee to cooperate.
Key Issues
The key legal issue was whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without considering the merits, thereby violating principles of natural justice and statutory requirements.
Sections Cited
Section 143(1), Section 147, Section 250, Section 250(6)
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 10.10.2025 passed in Appeal No. NFAC/2014-15/10259377 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.] 2015-16, wherein learned CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s appeal exparte.
The brief facts under appeal state that the assessee e-filed his return of income for A.Y. 2015-16 on 30.09.2015, declaring total income of Rs. 53,58,100/-. The case was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case was reopened u/s 147 of the Act. After taking assessee’s response into consideration, learned assessing officer determined the total income of the assessee at Rs. 4,00,93,100/-. Aggrieved, assessee preferred 1st appeal before learned CIT(A), who 3. dismissed assessee’s appeal exparte. 4. Assessee has filed this second appeal on the ground that learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the assessment order, ignoring the evidence available on record.
We have perused the records. Heard learned representatives for the appellant assessee and Ld. CIT(DR) for the respondent revenue.
Learned representative for the assessee has, at the very outset informed that 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 various notices dated 08.08.2025, 04.09.2025, 17.09.2025 and 26.09.2025 issued by the first appellate authority. The first appellate authority was thus compelled to pass exparte impugned order. It is further noticed that learned CIT(A) has passed ex-parte impugned order without any discussion on the merits of the case, whereas learned CIT(A) 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 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 should 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. 10. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Impugned order dated 10.10.2025 is set aside. Order pronounced in the open court on 21.01.2026 Sd- Sd- (M. BALAGANESH) (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated:20.02.2026