RAVINDRA KUMAR,KHADDA BAZAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(4), KUSHINAGAR, KUSHINAGAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 97/VNS/2024Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi05 January 2026AY 2016-17Bench: SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s non-speaking order and the assessment order, restoring the issues to the Assessing Officer. The AO was directed to pass a de novo assessment order after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer passed an assessment order under Section 143(3) making additions of Rs. 18,34,771/-, determining the assessee's total income at Rs. 21,54,250/-. The assessee's appeal against this order was dismissed by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

The key issues were the CIT(A) passing a non-speaking order without providing reasonable opportunity and the assessment order reproducing the assessee's explanation in incomprehensible coded machine language.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VARANASI CIRCUIT BENCH, VARANASI

Before: SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA

2016-17 against impugned appellate order dated 22/04/2024 (DIN & Order No.ITBA/APL/S/250/2024- 25/1064250096(1) of Commissioner of Income (Appeal) [in short the ‘CIT(A)’].

2.

In this case, assessment order dated 21.12.2018 was passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) whereby the assessee’s total income was determined at Rs.21,54,250/- by making additions of Rs.18,34,771/-. The assessee’s appeal against aforesaid assessment order was dismissed by the learned Addl/Jt. CIT(A) vide the aforesaid impugned appellate order dated 22.04.2024.

3.

At the time of hearing, the assessee was represented by none; in the absence of the any representation from the assessee’s side, the learned Departmental Representative (DR) of the Revenue was heard. Learned DR relied on the impugned appellate order; but left the matter to the discretion of the Bench. On perusal of the records, it is found that the learned CIT(A) has passed order, which is a non speaking order, without providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Further, on perusal of the assessment order, it is found that the explanation of the assessee has been reproduced in coded machine language of the computer; and not in common English. It is not possible to make sense of the explanation submitted by the assessee during the assessment proceedings. For the ease of reference, the relevant page of the assessment order is reproduced below:

Therefore, the impugned appellate order of learned Addl/Jt.CIT(A) is set aside and issues in dispute are restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to pass denovo assessment order, in accordance with law, after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. All the grounds of appeal are treated as disposed of in accordance with foregoing directions.

4.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes.

(Order pronounced in the open court on 05/01/2026)

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →