Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) due to non-appearance. The assessee's representative explained the non-compliance was due to notices being sent to an incorrect email address.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the ex-parte order was passed due to non-compliance with notices. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for de novo adjudication on merits, granting the assessee one more opportunity.
Key Issues
Whether to restore the appeal to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication due to ex-parte order caused by communication issues, and to allow the assessee an opportunity to be heard on merits.
Sections Cited
250, 43CA, 68
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “H(SMC
Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANTSHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL
Date of Hearing – 18/03/2026 Date of Order – 27/03/2026
O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The assessee has filed the present appeal against the impugned order dated 19/11/2025, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2019-20.
In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: - “1. On the Facts and Circumstances of the case and in law, learned lower authorities have erred in making various additions / disallowances.
2. On the Facts and Circumstances of the case and in law, learned lower authorities have erred in making addition u/s 43CA of the Act in respect of the Agreements made during the financial years 2011 and 2013.
3. On the Facts and Circumstances of the case and in law, learned lower authorities have erred in making ad-hoc disallowance of 10% of the Business Expenses which are subjected to the Tax Audit.
4. On the Facts and Circumstances of the case and in law, learned lower authorities have erred in making addition u/s 68 of the Act, in respect of the Capital Introduced in the Firm by their partners.
5. On the Facts and Circumstances of the case and in law, Hon. NFAC / CIT- Appeals erred in sending notices of hearing to the email address different from the one mentioned in the Appeal Memo F-35 and thereby erred in holding that there was no compliance from the appellants to the same.”
We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the 3. material available on record. In the present case, at the outset, it is evident that the learned CIT(A) has passed the order ex parte due to the non- appearance of/on behalf of the assessee. Now, in the appeal before us, the assessee is duly represented by the learned AR and wishes to pursue the litigation against the addition made by the AO. During the hearing, explaining the reasons for non-compliance with the notices issued by the learned CIT(A), the learned AR placed on record the affidavit of the assessee.
Therefore, in view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that, in the interest of justice, the assessee be hereby granted one more opportunity to represent its case on merits before the learned CIT(A). Consequently, we deem it fit and proper to set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of the learned CIT(A) for de novo adjudication of the appeal on merits, after considering all the details/submissions as may be filed by the assessee. Needless to mention, no order shall be passed without affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity of hearing to the parties. Further, the assessee is directed to furnish/update its Email address in the records before the learned CIT(A) so that the hearing notice(s) are sent to the operational email address. Thus, the assessee is directed to appear before the learned CIT(A) on all dates of hearing as may be fixed without any default. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 27/03/2026