ITAT Allahabad Judgments — February 2025

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's withdrawal application, noting the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Departmental Representative had no objection to the withdrawal. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal found that both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders without affording reasonable opportunity or deciding on merits. Therefore, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) to pass a de novo speaking order on merits, after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee as per Section 250(6) of the IT Act.

The Tribunal dismissed all grounds of appeal. It held that since no valid return was filed in response to the section 148 notice within the stipulated time, a notice under section 143(2) was not mandatory. On merits, the Tribunal upheld the additions for unexplained investment and the assessment of short-term capital gain in the assessee's hands due to lack of verifiable evidence for the assessee's agency claim or the source of funds. The partial disallowance of expenses was also confirmed due to the assessee's failure to provide proper details and evidence.

The ITAT observed that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without deciding on merits, which contravenes Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act requiring a speaking order. With the agreement of both parties, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeal de novo on merits, ensuring a speaking order and providing the assessee a fresh opportunity of hearing.