ITAT Revives 'Mummified' Appeal, Orders CIT(A) to Inject 'Soul' with a Reasoned Order [Read Order]
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had indeed failed to respond to several notices, but also observed that the CIT(A) had not discussed the merits of the case despite the assessee having raised 13 grounds of appeal.
ITAT -CIT(A) - taxscan
ITAT -CIT(A) - taxscan
The Agra Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) set aside an ex parte order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and directed a fresh adjudication with a speaking order, observing that absence of reasoning had “mummified” the spirit of the decision. The Tribunal was hearing the appeal of Veena Singh against the order of the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, which had dismissed her first appeal without entering into the merits.
Veena Singh, a resident of Gwalior, had filed a belated return of income on 26 March 2016 declaring Rs. 2.51 lakh. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS due to mismatch in contract receipts and TDS credits. During the proceedings, she filed a revised return on 12 January 2017 declaring income of Rs. 13.51 lakh and claiming TDS of Rs. 2.34 lakh. The Assessing Officer, however, held that the revised return was invalid since the original return was filed under section 139(4). Notices under section 142(1) were issued, but no response was filed. The Assessing Officer proceeded to make additions including Rs. 10.12 lakh on account of mismatch in receipts, Rs. 1.63 lakh as undisclosed income, Rs. 94.29 lakh as unexplained opening capital under section 68, and Rs. 1.13 lakh as unexplained unsecured loan. After deductions, the total assessed income was determined at Rs. 1.09 crore.
Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A), but the authority dismissed it ex parte on 11 October 2024 after repeated notices went unanswered. The assessee then approached the Tribunal, contending that the appellate authority had failed to decide the matter on merits as required under section 250(6) of the Act.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had indeed failed to respond to several notices, but also observed that the CIT(A) had not discussed the merits of the case despite the assessee having raised 13 grounds of appeal. The Bench remarked that “reason is the life of law” and its absence “mummifies the core spirit of the order.” Referring to the settled principle that no litigant should be condemned unheard, the Tribunal held that the matter required reconsideration by the first appellate authority with a reasoned order.
The Bench comprising M. Balaganesh, Accountant Member, and Sunil Kumar Singh, Judicial Member, directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate the appeal afresh on merits after affording opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee was also directed to cooperate in the proceedings.
In Conclusion, The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, with the Tribunal making it clear that no observation had been made on the merits of the additions
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
