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 Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.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 held that the assessee did not file a valid return in response to the section 148 notice, thus no notice under section 143(2) was required. The additions made by the AO regarding freehold charges and capital gains were upheld due to lack of verifiable evidence from the assessee.

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.