ITA No. 321/PAT/2023

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee, Upendra Singh, filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the assessment year 2017-2018. The appeal was decided ex-parte, and the assessee was not served with the notices, hence he was unaware of the status of his appeal and could not file submissions. The Tribunal reviewed the record and found that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution, which is contrary to the mandate given in section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the issues to the file of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for adjudication on merit.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the appeal was decided ex-parte and the assessee was not served with the notices?
• 2. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution contrary to section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act?

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Similar Judgements

• Pappu Kumar vs. Income Tax Officer

  Patna bench

• Avadhesh Kumar Panday Vs. ITO, Ward-2(4), Durgapur

  Kolkata Bench benchAY 2019-20Allowed

• HB KJ and Advance Vs. ITO, Ward 5(1), Pune

  Pune bench

• ITA No. 334/PAT/2023

  Patna bench

• Universal Drinks vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

  Delhi Bench 'G', Delhi benchAY 2015-16Allowed

• Dhansamridhi Finance Private Limited (Amalgamated Company) vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

  Kolkata bench