CIT(A) should have considered detailed statement of facts before dismissing appeal

CIT(A) should have considered the details statement of facts filed before him before dismissing the appeal of the assessee observing that the assessee had nothing to say

In a recent judgment, ITAT Bangalore has held that the CIT(A) should have considered the details statement of facts filed before him before dismissing the appeal of the assessee observing that the assessee had nothing to say

ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
5092 (2026) (04) abacus.in ITAT

In the instant case, the assessee had challenged the order passed by the CIT(A) National faceless appeal Centre dismissing his appeal.

The return of the assessee was picked up for scrutiny. The assessee had earned income from house property by way of rent, income from partnership firms and income from other sources.

The Assessing Officer (AO) noted that there was a lease agreement and on the rent income the assessee had claimed tax deduction at source credit. As the rate of tax deduction was 10%, the assessing officer computed the corresponding receipt being 10 times of tax deduction at source than the income declared.

The AO was of the view that even after deducting the security deposit amount, a large amount still remained unexplained. Thus, accordingly the assessment order was passed under section 143(3) read with section 144 B of the Income Tax Act making an addition.

The assessee preferred appeal before the CIT-A. Before him the assessee submitted a detailed statement of facts and submitted that the impugned addition was incorrect. The CIT-A recorded the facts of the case called out from the assessment order. However the assessee did not reply to five notices issued on email ID provided, but applied adjournment only on two occasions.

As the assessee did not reply, the CIT(A) held that assessee was not interested in prosecuting the matter. However, the CIT(A) discussed the facts of the case and held that as assessee could not furnish any explanation or evidence, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed.

Before the Tribunal, the assessee submitted that no doubt he could not appear before the CIT(A) but had furnished the detailed statement of facts. These statements of facts if considered from the right perspective, the addition could not have been made in the case of the assessee.

The Tribunal found that in the statement of facts before him, the assessee had made elaborate discussion on the merit of the issue. However, CIT(A) did not consider these merits and stated that the assessee had nothing else to say. The Tribunal opined that In fact, before deciding the issue on merits the CIT(A) should have considered the statement of facts filed before him. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was not sustainable.

However, at the same time the Tribunal observed that it was also a fact that assessee could have made the submission before the CIT(A) when five different opportunities were given by him.

Accordingly, the Tribunal restored the whole issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer and imposed a cost of ₹ 1000/- on the assessee.

Download Full Judgment Click Here >>

• CA Misconduct – Order quashed as judgment not passed by same members who heard arguments.
• Deceased homemaker can not be considered as dependant for award of compensation under MV Act – SC
• CIT notice u/s 263 quashed as AO rightly took DVO value of property as actual sale price
• Extension of timeline for implementation of Ship To GSTIN & Voluntary Closure of E-Way Bill functionalities
• No protective addition required when additions is confirmed in hands of searched person – ITAT