MADHURI AGARWAL,LUCKNOW V. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 3(2), LUCKNOW

ITA 691/LKW/2024

AI Insights

Madhuri Agarwal filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which had dismissed her earlier appeal for want of prosecution. The original assessment determined her income for the year 2015-16 at Rs.1,06,24,232. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not provided sufficient time and opportunity to the assessee and had failed to pass a speaking order on merits as required under section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions and the lack of objection from the Departmental Representative, decided to set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remand the matter back for a fresh decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 773137 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 29-11-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: REVENUE DID NOT EXPRESS ANY; R.R.N. SHUKLA
• Assessee Lawyers: RAGHUNATH MISHRA
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

"I.T.A. No.691/Lkw/2024 Assessment Year:2015-16 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH ‘B’, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUBHASH MALGURIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.691/Lkw/2024 Assessment year:2015-16 Madhuri Agarwal A1/1, Sec-B, Aliganj, Lucknow. PAN:BMGPA4168Q Vs. Income Tax Officer-2(2), Lucknow. (Appellant) (Respondent) O R D E R PER SUBHASH MALGURIA:J.M. This appeal vide I.T.A. No.691/Lkw/2024 has been filed by the assessee for assessment year 2015-16 against the impugned appellate order dated 19/10/2023 (DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1057211035(1) of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)” for short]. 2. The appeal filed by the assessee is beyond the time prescribed u/s 253(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” for short). The assessee has filed application for condonation of delay duly supported by medical Appellant by Shri Raghunath Mishra, Advocate Respondent by Shri R.R.N. Shukla, Addl. CIT (D.R.) Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.691/Lkw/2024 Assessment Year:2015-16 2 certificates; pleading that the delay was unintentional and beyond the control of the assessee and has requested to admit the appeal for hearing. The learned Departmental Representative for Revenue did not express any objection to assessee’s application for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. In view of the foregoing, and being convinced with the pleadings of the assessee, the delay in filing of this appeal is condoned; and the appeal is admitted for hearing. 3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and filed her return of income for the year under consideration on 15/07/2016. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act and passed assessment order on 14/11/2017 and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.1,06,24,232/-. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal in the office of learned CIT(A). Vide impugned appellate order dated 19/10/2023, the assessee’s appeal was dismissed by the learned CIT(A) for want of prosecution. 4. Being aggrieved further, the assessee has filed the present appeal in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal against the aforesaid impugned appellate order of learned CIT(A). At the time of hearing, learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the learned CIT(A) passed impugned order without affording sufficient time and opportunity to the assessee. The learned Counsel for the assessee further submitted that the learned CIT(A) failed to pass a speaking order on merits and dismissed the assessee’s appeal in a summary manner in violation of the provisions u/s 250(6) of the Act. He further submitted that the learned CIT(A) was duty bound u/s 250(6) of the IT Act to pass a speaking order on various grounds of appeal, on merits, but learned CIT(A) failed to do so. In view of the foregoing, learned counsel for the assessee submitted, the impugned order of learned CIT(A) should be set Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.691/Lkw/2024 Assessment Year:2015-16 3 aside and the issue in dispute should be restored to the file of learned CIT(A) with the direction to pass fresh order in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The learned Sr. D.R. for the Revenue did not express any objection to this, and left the matter to the discretion of the Bench. In view of the submissions made, the impugned appellate order of learned CIT(A) is set aside and issue in dispute is restored back to the file of learned CIT(A) with the direction to pass de novo order, in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, and ensuring adherence to section 250(6) of the I. T. Act. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. (Order pronounced in the open court on 24/09/2025) Sd/. Sd/. (NIKHIL CHOUDHARY) (SUBHASH MALGURIA) Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated:24/09/2025 *Singh Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. Concerned CIT 4. D.R., I.T.A.T., Lucknow Printed from counselvise.com "