RAVDEEP SINGH,CHANDIGARH V. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-4, PATIALA

ITA 858/CHANDI/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the assessee, Sh Ravdeep Singh, against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which was dismissed ex-parte for want of prosecution. The Tribunal found that the CIT (Appeals) had not adhered to the mandatory procedure under Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, which requires the formulation of points in dispute and recording reasons in support of conclusions. The Tribunal's decision to set aside the CIT (Appeals)'s order and restore the case for fresh adjudication emphasizes the importance of procedural compliance in tax appeal processes.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 773034 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 25-06-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RANJIT KAUR
• Assessee Lawyers: T.N. SINGLA
• Keywords: Set aside

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण,चÖडीगढ़ Ûयायपीठ, चÖडीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘B’ CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 858/CHD/2025 Ǔनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sh Ravdeep Singh, SCO 80-81, Third Floor, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh Vs The ITO, Ward 4, Patiala. èथायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: CQPPS2285C अपीलाथȸ/Appellant Ĥ×यथȸ/Respondent Assessee by : Shri T.N.Singla, CA Revenue by : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 10.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 22.09.2025 PHYSICAL HEARING O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, VP The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘the CIT (A)’] dated 31.10.2023 passed for assessment year 2017- 18. 2. The assessee has taken nine grounds of appeal, out of which under Ground No.2, assessee has pleaded that ld.CIT (Appeals) has erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte for want of prosecution. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.858/CHD/2025 A.Y.2017-18 2 3. In Ground No. 3 and 4, he has challenged addition of Rs.10,41,500/-. 4. With the assistance of ld. Representative, we find that ld. First Appellate Authority has dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution by observing that number of notices have been issued but the assessee did not respond to the notices. However, if sub- section (6) of Section 250 is being perused, then it provides that ld.CIT (Appeals) has to formulate the points in dispute and thereafter record reasons in support of his conclusion on those points. Thus, ld.CIT (Appeals) has failed to adhere the mandatory procedure contemplated in Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and restore this appeal to the file of ld.CIT (Appeals) for fresh adjudication on merit. The assessee is directed to intimate his latest address alongwith e-mail etc. so that notice could be served upon him. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 22.09.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) (RAJPAL YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT “Poonam” Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.858/CHD/2025 A.Y.2017-18 3 आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथȸ/ The Appellant 2. Ĥ×यथȸ/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयुÈत/ CIT 4. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकर अपीलȣय आͬधकरण, चÖडीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 5. गाड[ फाईल/ Guard File सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar Printed from counselvise.com "