SMT. SHAMA PARVEEN,ROORKEE vs. 1.CIT(A)& 2) I.T.O ROORKEE, ROORKEE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 242/DDN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun11 February 2026AY 2016-17Bench: YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member), SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte and did not decide all grounds on merits, violating natural justice. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing the assessee an opportunity of being heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee's income was recomputed at Rs. 88,98,977/- against a returned income of Rs. 50,000/- under Section 147 r.w.s 144 and Section 144B. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte without providing an opportunity of being heard.

What were the issues?

The key legal issue was whether the Ld. CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice by dismissing the assessee's appeal ex-parte without providing an opportunity of being heard and without deciding all grounds on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DEHRADUN BENCH, DEHRADUN

Hearing: 09/02/2026Pronounced: 11/02/2026

ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM: The present appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Ld.

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC’ for short), New Delhi dated 24/06/2025 for the Assessment Year 2016-17.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that, an assessment order came to be passed on 26/03/2024 u/s 147 r.w.s 144 and Section 144B of Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) by computing the income of the Assessee at Rs. 88,98,977/-, as against the returned income of Rs. 50,000/-.

Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 26/03/2024, Assessee preferred the Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 24/06/2025, dismissed the Appeal filed by the Assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Assessee preferred the present Appeal.

3.

The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee vehemently submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has provided no opportunity of being heard to the Assessee and in violation of principals of natural justice, dismissed the appeal of the Assessee.

4.

Per contra, the Ld. Ld. Departmental Representative relying on the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) sought for dismissal of the Appeal.

5.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. It can be seen from the order of the Ld. CIT(A) , the impugned order has been passed ex-parte without hearing the Assessee. It is further observed that, while deciding the Appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) has not decided all the grounds of Appeal of the Assessee on its merits.

Considering the facts that the Assessee has not participated in the first Appellate proceedings, in the interest of natural justice, we remand the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the Appeals afresh on its merits in accordance with law after providing opportunity of being heard to the Assessee.

6.

In the result, the Appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on 11th February, 2026

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →