ROGI KALYAN SAMITI CIVIL ASPATAL MORAR,MALL ROAD MORAR V. ITO EXEMPTION, GWALIOR

ITA 333/AGR/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Rogi Kalyan Samiti, the appellant, contesting an order from the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), which dismissed their appeal ex parte. The primary issue arose from the Assessing Officer's addition of Rs.1,71,52,990 as taxable income, following the assessee's failure to respond to various statutory notices. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) found that both the initial assessment and the subsequent appeal were conducted ex parte without substantial discussion on the merits, leading to the decision to remand the case back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 777349 (ITAT-AGRA)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 29-06-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASSESSEE; LD; ANIL KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: NITIN PAHARIYA
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice
• Section: 144; 142(1)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 333/Agr/2025 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Rogi Kalyan Samiti, Civil Aspatal, Mall Road, Morar, Gwalior. Vs. Income-tax Officer, (Exemption, Gwalior PAN : AADAR6336C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Nitin Pahariya, CA Department by Sh. Anil Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 18.09.2025 Date of pronouncement 29.09.2025 ORDER PER : SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal has been preferred by assessee against the impugned order dated 18.12.2024 passed in Appeal No. NFAC/2019-20/10195818 by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2020-21, wherein learned CIT(Appeals) has dismissed assessee’s first appeal ex parte. 2. At the very outset, it is noticed that this appeal is delayed by about 120 days. Learned AR for assessee has drawn attention of the Bench towards assessee’s delay condonation application, wherein it is stated that the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.333/Agr/2025 2 | P a g e assessee was hospitalized and was not aware of the notices issued through portal. Prayed to condone the delay. 3. It is well established principle of law that the substantial justice cannot be denied on technical aberrations. The object of prescribing procedure is to advance the cause of justice. In an adversial justice system like ours, no party should ordinarily be denied the opportunity of participating in the process of justice dispensation. Justice is the goal of jurisprudence. Any interpretation which eludes or frustrates the recipient of justice, is not to be followed. The object of prescribing certain time period for filing of the appeal is to expedite the proceedings before the concerned authorities and to advance the cause of justice. In the totality of circumstances, we condone the delay in filing the appeal. 4. Brief facts state that the assessee has filed return of income on 19.10.2020, declaring total income at Rs. Nil. Return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. Case was selected for complete scrutiny for the reason “large amount deemed to have been applied to charitable or religious purposes”. Statutory notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) were issued to the assessee but for no avail. Subsequently, show cause notice u/s. 144 was also issued, but remained un-responded. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer added Rs.1,71,52,990/- as taxable income of the assessee. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.333/Agr/2025 3 | P a g e 5. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(Appeals), who dismissed assessee’s first appeal ex parte in default of the assessee. 6. Assessee has filed this appeal on the ground, in addition to other grounds taken on merit, that the ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in sustaining the addition without affording proper and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 7. Perused the record and heard learned AR for assessee and ld. DR for the revenue. 8. We notice that the assessment order dated 25.09.2022 passed by ld. Assessing Officer is based on the best judgment assessment u/s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act. Similarly, the impugned order dated 18.12.2024 passed by ld. CIT(Appeals) is also ex parte. We notice that the assessee did not respond to various notices issued by ld. CIT(Appeals) on 17.01.2023, 28.11.2024, 05.12.2024 and 12.12.2024. It is, however, noticed that learned CIT(Appeals) has reiterated the entire assessment order and passed ex-parte impugned order without any substantial discussion on the merits of the case, whereas learned CIT(Appeals) 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. As the orders of both the authorities below are ex parte, we deem it just and proper to restore the matter back to the file of learned Assessing Officer, before whom, the assessee may file submissions along with evidences Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.333/Agr/2025 4 | P a g e in support of his case. Learned Assessing Officer, after due verification of the evidence produced before him, shall pass order afresh in accordance with law. We order accordingly. Needless to say that learned Assessing Officer shall ensure the observance of the principles of natural justice. The appeal is liable to be allowed accordingly. 98. In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 29.09.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (M. BALAGANESH) (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 29.09.2025 *aks/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Agra Printed from counselvise.com "