VEENA SINGH,GWALIOR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3), GWALIOR, GWALIOR

ITA 324/AGR/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the assessee, Veena Singh, against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), which dismissed her first appeal ex parte. The primary contention was the lack of substantial discussion on the merits of the case in the ex parte order. The Income Tax Officer had made several additions to the assessee's income based on discrepancies and lack of explanations regarding income and TDS credits. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adequately addressed the grounds raised by the assessee in her appeal and remitted the case back for a detailed examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 781361 (ITAT-AGRA)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 21-06-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASSESSEE; LD; REVENUE; ANIL KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: ASHOK VIJAYWARGIYA
• Keywords: Revised return; Principle of natural justice; TDS; FORM 26AS
• Section: 142(1); 68

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. 324/Agr/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Veena Singh, House No. 65, Gandhi Road, Thatipur Gaon, Gwalior (MP). Vs. Income-tax Officer, Ward 2(3), Gwalior. PAN : BCGPS5999R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Ashok Vijaywargiya, CA Department by Sh. Anil Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 20.08.2025 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 11.10.2024, passed in Appeal No. CIT (A), Gwalior/10615/2017-18 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 2015-16, wherein the ld. CIT(Appeals) has dismissed assessee’s first appeal ex parte. 2. At the very outset, it is noticed that this appeal is time barred by 172 days according to the report of the Registry. However, in Form No. 36, Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.203/Agr/2025 2 | P a g e assessee has mentioned the date of service of the impugned order as 19.06.2025, hence, in view of section 253(3) of the Act, the appeal appears to be belated by a single day, which stands condoned in the interest of justice. 3. Brief facts state that the assessee filed a belated return of income on 26.03.2016, declaring total income of ₹2,51,170/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS due to a mismatch in contract receipts/fees and TDS credits. Statutory notices under Sections 142(1) and 143(2) were issued. Subsequently, the assessee filed a revised return on 12.01.2017 declaring income of Rs.13,51,170/- and claiming TDS of Rs.2,34,213/-. However, as the original return was filed belatedly under Section 139(4), the Assessing Officer observed that the revised return so filed was not acceptable. Further notice under Section 142(1) with a detailed questionnaire dated 14.12.2017 issued by Assessing Officer, went unanswered. The Assessing Officer, based on discrepancies and lack of explanations, made the following additions to the returned income of the assessee: Rs.10,12,930/- on a/c of mismatch in gross receipts & net profit as per Form 26AS and original return. Rs.1,63,575/- as undisclosed income from other sources. Rs.94,29,470/- as unexplained opening capital under Section 68. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.203/Agr/2025 3 | P a g e Rs.1,13,000/- as unexplained unsecured loan under Section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE. After allowing Chapter VIA deductions, the total assessed income was determined at Rs.1,09,52,440/-. 4. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before ld. CIT(Appeals), who dismissed assessee’s first appeal ex parte. 5. Assessee has filed the second appeal on the various grounds on merits of additions made by Assessing Officer. 6. Perused the records. Heard Ld. representative for assessee and Ld. DR for revenue. 7. Learned representative for assessee has submitted that the impugned order passed ex parte only for want of prosecution is not sustainable, as the first appellate authority has not decided the appeal on merit as per section 250(6) of the Act. 8. Learned DR has pointed out that more than sufficient opportunities were afforded to the assessee, but for no avail. Ld. DR has supported the impugned order. 9. It transpires from the perusal of the impugned order that the assessee did not file any submission in response to various notices issued by the first Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.203/Agr/2025 4 | P a g e appellate authority on twelve occasions as listed at pages 9 to 11 of the impugned order. Such an irresponsive and reluctant attitude of the assessee has compelled the first appellate authority to pass impugned order ex parte. It is, however, noticed that learned CIT(Appeals) 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, more particularly when the appellant assessee had raised 13 grounds in Form-35 before ld. CIT(Appeals), challenging various additions made by Assessing Officer. 10. It is well settled principle that the ‘reason’ is the life of law. It is that filament that injects soul to the order. Absence of analysis, not only evinces non-application of mind but also mummifies the core spirit of the order. Keeping the well settled principle that no litigant should be condemned unheard in view, we deem it just and appropriate to remit the matter back to the file of learned CIT(A) for adjudication afresh on merits after affording opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The ld. CIT(Appeals) is directed to pass speaking and reasoned order. We direct the assessee to be cooperative in attending the hearings and making submissions before the learned CIT(A) for the expeditious and effective disposal. Needless to say, Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.203/Agr/2025 5 | P a g e 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, thus, liable to be allowed for statistical purposes. 11. 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 "