ITA No.49/CHD/2024

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee, Kuldip Singh, appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 20.11.2023. The appeal was dismissed ex-parte by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) because Kuldip Singh did not receive any communications from the office of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Counsel for the Assessee argued that the ex-parte order was in contravention of section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which mandates that the appeal shall be disposed of by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in writing. The Counsel also submitted that the ex-parte order resulted in a substantial miscarriage of justice and requested that the appeal be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for adjudication afresh on merits.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the ex-parte order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is in compliance with section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

• Suman Saini, Naraingarh vs. The ITO, Ward 4, Ambala

  Chandigarh bench

• Guthikonda Pradeep Kumar Reddy vs. Income Tax Officer

  Hyderabad bench

• Shahnawaz Mustakkhan Pathan vs. The Income Tax Officer

  Ahmedabad bench

• Sri Shiridi Sai Educational Society vs. ITO, Ward-1 Warangal

  Hyderabad bench

• Seth Soorajmull Jalan Girls College Vs. ITO, Ward 1(3), Exemption

  Kolkata benchAY 2019-20Allowed

• Shri Saneey Kumar Jain Vs ITO, Ward-43(3), Kolkata

  Kolkata Bench benchAY 2017-18Allowed