What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and did not give findings on the issues raised. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The assessee's appeal was disposed of by the CIT(A) without issuing a notice of hearing. The CIT(A) made observations about the assessment order but did not adjudicate on the facts and grounds of appeal raised by the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in disposing of the appeal without granting an opportunity of hearing to the assessee and without adjudicating on the merits of the case.

Pricewaterhouse Coopers Pvt… vs DCIT | s.254 | ITAT Kolkata 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI GOPALAN GURUSAMY

For Appellant: Shri K. M. Gupta, AR

For Respondent: Shri Gayasuddin Ansari, CIT-DR

Hearing: 10.09.2026Pronounced: 10.09.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GOPALAN GURUSAMY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.724/Kol/2026 Assessment Year: 2021-22

Pricewaterhouse Coopers DCIT, Circle-1(1), Kolkata Pvt. Ltd. Vs Plot No.-Y14, Block EP, Sector V, Salt Lake, Kol-91. (PAN: AABCP9181H) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by : Shri K. M. Gupta, AR Revenue by : Shri Gayasuddin Ansari, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 10.09.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 10.09.2026

ORDER Per George Mathan, JM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] in appeal no.NFAC/2020-21/10310445 dated 10.12.2025 for the assessment year 2021-22.

Shri K. M. Gupta, AR represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri Gayasuddin Ansari, CIT-DR represented on behalf of the revenue.

ITA No.724/Kol/2026 3. It was submitted by the ld. AR that when the matter came before the ld. CIT(A), no notice of hearing has been issued by the ld. CIT(A) to the assessee. However, on the basis of statement of facts and grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) has disposed off the appeal wherein he has given the finding in para 4 of his order which reads as follows:

3.1 It was the submission that the appeal has been disposed off without hearing the assessee and it is prayed that the assessee may be granted an opportunity to represent before the ld. CIT(A).

In reply, the ld. CIT-DR has submitted that he has no objection if the issues are restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for re-adjudication after granting adequate opportunity of being heard.

We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the order of the ld. CIT(A) shows that in para 4 of his order, the ld. CIT(A) has tried to point the faults and defects in the assessment order which has been

ITA No.724/Kol/2026 passed. Even though, he recorded the statement of facts and the grounds of appeal as raised by the assessee, he has decided not to adjudicate on the said facts. There is also no opportunity granted to the assessee as is evident from the order of the ld. CIT(A). It is also noticed that the ld. CIT(A) has been kind to the assessee in directing that the assessee is free to exercise his judicial liberty of filing the appeal against the order u/s 254 giving effect to the appeal-order. Admittedly, we are sure that the assessee knows its legal remedies. It is surprising that such an order has been passed by the ld. CIT(A) and it is also being noticed that such orders are being repeatedly passed by CIT(A)s. Thus, such orders are to be deprecated. We are not stating anything more on the conclusions drawn by the ld. CIT(A). However, as no findings have been given by the ld. CIT(A) in respect of issues raised by the assessee, the order of the ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the issues in the appeal are restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 10/09/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [Gopalan Gurusamy] [George Mathan] लेखा सदस्य/Accountant Member न्याययक सदस्य/Judicial Member Dated: 10/09/2026 RS

ITA No.724/Kol/2026 Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant - 2. Respondent – 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR),

//True copy// By order

PRICEWATERHOUSE COOPERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments