VISHAL KUMAR,EAST CHAMPARAN V. ITO, WARD- 1 (4), MOTIHARI

ITA 125/PAT/2025

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Vishal Kumar, the proprietor of M/s Alankar Jewellers, against an order from the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The appeal was initially barred by limitation but was condoned due to the assessee's bonafide reasons for the delay. The main contention arose because the CIT (A) had passed an ex-parte order without a substantive hearing on merits, which was challenged as a violation of procedural fairness under Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal found merit in restoring the appeal to the CIT (A) for a comprehensive re-evaluation.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 788961 (ITAT-PATNA)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 12 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: 17-03-2025
• Laws Referred To: Section 250(6) of the Income Tax 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.125/PAT/2025 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Vishal Kumar Prop-M/s Alankar Jewellers, Main road, Motihari-845401, Bihar Vs. ITO, Ward 1(4) Motihari, Bihar (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. BAOPK3639J 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 National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 21.03.2024 for the AY 2017-18. 2. At the outset, we note that the appeal of the assessee is barred by limitation by 290 days. At the time of hearing the counsel of the assessee explained the reasons for delay in filing the appeal. The Ld. D.R did not raise any objection in condoning the delay. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the delay is for bonafide and genuine reasons and hence, we condone the delay and adjudicate the appeal. 3. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. An adjournment petition was filed, which is denied as this is an ex-parte order before the Printed from counselvise.com Page | 2 ITA No.125/PAT/2025 Vishal Kumar; A.Y. 2017-18 learned CIT (A), hence, we decide the same with the help of learned Departmental Representative. 3.1. We after hearing the learned DR and perusing the material available on record, we find that apparently this appeal was decided ex-parte by the learned CIT (A). We note that despite numerous 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. 4. 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 Printed from counselvise.com Page | 3 ITA No.125/PAT/2025 Vishal Kumar; A.Y. 2017-18 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 "