Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's assessment orders for AY 2017-18 and 2019-20 were passed ex-parte under Section 147 read with Section 144/144B, making certain additions. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeals, also ex-parte, without deciding on the merits of the grounds.
Held
The tribunal noted that both lower authorities passed ex-parte orders and the Ld. CIT(A) did not decide all grounds on merits. In the interest of justice, the tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for de-novo assessments, directing an opportunity of being heard for the assessee.
Key Issues
The key legal issue was whether ex-parte assessment and appellate orders, passed without the assessee's participation and without deciding appeal grounds on merits, violated principles of natural justice.
Sections Cited
Section 147, Section 144, Section 144B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DEHRADUN BENCH, DEHRADUN
Before: YOGESH KUMAR U.S. & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI
(A.Y. 2019-20) (SMC) Reeta Goyal Vs Income Tax officer 55, NalaPani Road, Dehradun, Ward 1(1) (3) Uttarakhand Dehradun, Uttarakhand PAN: AHYPG4217C Appellant Respondent Assessee by CA Rahul Jain, Application for adjournment filed-Application rejected Revenue by Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 12/02/2026 Date of Pronouncement 18/02/2026 ORDER
PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM:
The captioned Appeals are filed by the Assessee against the orders of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC’ for short), New Delhi dated 14/10/2025 for the Assessment Years 2017-18 and 2019-20 respectively.
Brief facts of the case are that, an assessment orders came to be passed on 31/01/2025 and on 19/03/2024 u/s 147 r.w.s 144 read with section 144B of the Income-tax Act of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) respectively for Assessment Year 2017-18 and 2019-20 by making certain additions. The Assessee preferred two Appeals before the Ld. CIT(A) which were dismissed on 14/10/2025 vide orders impugned.
As against the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 14/10/2025, Assessee preferred the present Appeals.
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 Appeals of the Assessee and the order impugned came to be passed in violation of principals of natural justice.
Thus, sought for allowing the Appeal.
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.
We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. Both the orders of the A.O. as well as orders 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 assessments. Needless to say, the A.O. shall provide opportunity of being heard to the Assessee before passing the assessment orders in accordance with law. The Assessee is also directed to participate in assessment proceedings without fail.
6. In the result, the Appeals of the Appellant are partly allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on 18th February, 2026