SANJAY KUMAR SINHA,SAMASTIPUR V. ITO, WARD- 3 (3), SAMASTIPUR

ITA 435/PAT/2025

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Sanjay Kumar Sinha against an ex-parte order from the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Addl/JCIT(A), Panaji, for the Assessment Year 2015-16. The appeal was heard by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench, where the assessee was not represented, and an adjournment petition was denied. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions of the Departmental Representative and the records, found that the earlier decision was made without proper hearing, thus violating the procedural requirements of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 789047 (ITAT-PATNA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 24-09-2025
• Laws Referred To: Section 250(6) of the Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHWANI KR. SINGAL
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “PATNA” BENCH, PATNA BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VP AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM ITA No.435/PAT/2025 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Sanjay Kumar Sinha Narayanpur Dadhiya, PO- Shambhupatti, Samastipur- 848129, Bihar Vs. ITO, Ward 3(3) Samastipur, Bihar (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. APWPS1995M Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, DR Date of hearing: 28.11.2025 Date of pronouncement: 28.11.2025 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, AM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Addl/JCIT(A), Panaji(hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 30.07.2025 for the AY 2015-16. 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. An adjournment petition was filed, which is denied as this is an ex-parte order before the learned CIT (A), hence, we decide the same with the help of learned Departmental Representative. 2.1. We after hearing the learned DR and perusing the material available on record, we find that apparently this appeal was decided ex-parte before the learned CIT (A). We note that despite numerous Printed from counselvise.com Page | 2 ITA No. notices, none represented before the ld. CIT (A) and the ld. CIT (A) passed an ex-parte order in limine without deciding the issues at merit, which in our opinion is in violation of Provisions of Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, this appeal is restored to the file of the learned CIT (A) with a direction to decide the same on merit after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. It is further clarified that assessee should also not seek any adjournments unless otherwise required for valid and reasonable cause. The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 3. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 28.11.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (DUVVURU RL REDDY) (RAJESH KUMAR) (VICE PRESIDENT) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Patna, Dated: 28.11.2025 Sudip Sarkar, Sr.PS Copy of the Order forwarded to: BY ORDER, True Copy// Sr. Private Secretary/ Asst. Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, 5. Guard file. Printed from counselvise.com "