MAA SHARDA SHIKSHA PRASAR SAMITI,MOTIJHEEL, GWALIOR, MADHYA PRADESH V. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, GWALIOR, CITY CENTRE, GWALIOR

ITA 90/AGR/2026

AI Insights

The case involves Maa Sharda Shiksha Prasar Samiti, a non-profit organization, which appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi. The appeal was initially dismissed ex-parte by the CIT(A) for the assessment year 2016-17, concerning an addition of Rs. 11,57,165 as unexplained Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) to the assessee's income. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) found that the CIT(A) had not adequately discussed the merits of the case in the ex-parte order and noted the absence of substantial discussion on the points of determination, decision, and reasons for the decision as required under section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The ITAT decided to remit the matter back to the CIT(A) for a detailed examination and a fair hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 847789 (ITAT-AGRA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-03-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Agra
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 30-01-2026
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHAILENDRA SRIVASTAVA
• Assessee Lawyers: APOORV SHIVHARE
• Keywords: Set aside; Capital Gains; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 147; 148; 142(1)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA (SMC) BENCH, AGRA BEFORE: SHRI M BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 90/Agr/2026 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Maa Sharda Shiksha Prasar Samiti, Motijheel, Gwalior, M.P.- 474010 Vs. IT Department, Gwalior PAN : AAEAM5742Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Apoorv Shivhare, Adv. Department by Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. DR Date of hearing 19.03.2026 Date of pronouncement 27.03.2026 ORDER PER: SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated 02.12.2025 (wrongly mentioned as 28.01.2026 in Form 36) passed in appeal No NFAC/2015-16/10367847 by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A) u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for the A.Y. 2016-17, wherein ld CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s appeal ex-parte. 2. The brief facts under appeal state that the assessee is a non filer. The case was reopened u/s 147 of the Act. Notice u/s 148 of the Act was Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.90/Agr/2026 2 | P a g e issued. The assessee filed his return of income for A.Y. 2016-17, declaring total income of Rs. 7,07,800/- in response to the notice u/s. 148 of the Act. Statutory notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued and served upon the assessee. After considering assessee’s response, learned assessing officer completed the assessment and added Rs. 11,57,165/- as unexplained Long Term Capital Gains in the total income of the assesse. 3. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before learned CIT(A), who dismissed assessee’s first appeal in default of assesse. 4. Assessee has filed this second appeal on the ground substantively that learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 11,57,165/- as LTCG, contrary to the evidence on record. 5. We have perused the records and heard learned representative for the appellant assessee and ld Sr DR for the respondent revenue. 6. Learned representative for the assessee has, at the very outset submitted that impugned order has been passed by learned CIT(A) ex- parte in violation of the principles of natural justice. Prayed to set aside the impugned order. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.90/Agr/2026 3 | P a g e 7. Learned Sr DR has submitted that assessee was provided sufficient opportunity of hearing by learned CIT(A) on three occasions but for no avail. Learned Sr DR has supported the impugned order. 8. We notice that the assessee did not respond to the various notices issued by the first appellate authority. However, it is further noticed that learned CIT(A) passed ex-parte impugned order without any substantial discussion on the merits of the case, whereas learned CIT(A) was expected to state the points for determination, decision thereon and the reasons for the decision as provided u/s. 250(6) of the Act. In such circumstances and in the interest of justice and fair play, we deem it just and appropriate to afford last opportunity to the assessee and remit the matter back to the file of learned CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. We further direct the assessee to be diligent and cooperative in attending the hearings and making submissions before the learned CIT(A) for the expeditious and effective disposal. Assessee should refrain from seeking any adjournment but for compelling and unavoidable reasons. Needless to say that learned CIT(A) shall ensure the observance of the principles of natural justice. It is made clear that we have not made any observation in respect of the merits of the case. The appeal is liable to be allowed for statistical purposes. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.90/Agr/2026 4 | P a g e 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Impugned order dated 02.12.2025 is set aside. Order pronounced on - 27.03.2026 Sd/- Sd/- (M BALAGANESH) (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 27.03.2026 *Aamir Siddiqui, PS Copy forwarded to 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Agra Printed from counselvise.com "