Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's income tax return for AY 2017-18 was selected for scrutiny, leading to a best judgment assessment under Section 144 due to non-response. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal ex-parte after multiple notices and adjournments. The assessee then appealed to the ITAT.
Held
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal and found that the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order lacked a reasoned decision on merits, which is required by Section 250(6). Therefore, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication on merits, with directions for the assessee to cooperate.
Key Issues
The key legal issues were the validity of an ex-parte order by the CIT(A without a reasoned decision on merits and the condonation of a minor delay in filing the appeal to the ITAT.
Sections Cited
Section 144, Section 250, Section 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA BENCH, AGRA
Before: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN & SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH
ORDER
PER SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
This appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated 12.09.2025 passed in Appeal no. CIT(A), Gwalior/10373/2019-20 by the Ld. Commissioner of Income– tax(Appeals)/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 "Act"] for the Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2017-18, wherein learned CIT(A) has dismissed assessee's first appeal exparte.
At the very outset, it is noticed that the appeal was filed on 01.12.2025 against the impugned order dated 12.09.2025 by a delay of about less than a month. The assessee’s application for the condonation of delay caused in filing this appeal is on record. The grounds shown is that the delay was caused during transit after dispatch of the appeal memo. In the interest of justice, the cause is treated as sufficient and the delay caused in filing this appeal is condoned.
Savitri Sheet Grah, Etawah v ITO 2(1), Gwalior 3. None responded for the assessee. Perused records and heard Learned Sr. DR for the respondent revenue.
We notice from the perusal of record that the appellant is a firm and derives income from business activity. It filed return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 on 24.10.2017, declaring total income at Rs. 9,02,510/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. Statutory notices were issued but assessee did not respond, hence, the best judgment assessment dated 01.12.2019 was completed u/s 144 of the Act, determining assessee’s total income at Rs. 2,28,00,023/-.
Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A), who dismissed assessee’s appeal ex-parte.
We further notice that Ld. CIT(A) issued various notices dated 07.01.2021, 11.09.2022, 08.07.2023, 28.05.2024, 01.10.2024 and 19.11.2024. The assessee either remained un-responded or sought adjournments and failed to make required compliance before the first appellate authority. Ld. CIT(A) was thus, compelled to pass ex-parte impugned order. It is however noticed that the impugned order is not based on merits with reason. There is no due or proper application of mind or any critical analysis or objective consideration in the impugned order. It is well settled in law that the reason is the life of law. It is that filament that injects soul to the order. Absence of analysis not only evinces non-application of mind but also mummifies the core spirit of the order. 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 remit the matter back to the file of learned CIT(A) for adjudication on merits and to pass speaking order afresh. We 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. 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.