What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's casual approach and imposed a cost of Rs. 5000/-. However, to ensure a fair hearing, the Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The assessee failed to appear before the CIT(A) despite multiple opportunities, leading to an ex-parte order. The assessee attributed this non-compliance to a communication gap with their tax consultant.

What were the issues?

Whether an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) due to non-compliance by the assessee should be set aside to allow for a fresh hearing, considering the assessee's explanation and the need for natural justice.

M/S Pearl Heights, Uttarakhand vs DCIT | ITAT Dehradun 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DEHRADUN CIRCUIT BENCH: DEHRADUN

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. and Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv

For Respondent: Shri S.K. Chaterjee, CIT- DR

Hearing: 21/07/2026Pronounced: 21/07/2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DEHRADUN CIRCUIT BENCH: DEHRADUN BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.288/DDN/2026 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2023-24)

M/s Pearl Heights, Dy. CIT, 36, Raj Vihar, Chakarata Road, Central Circle, Dehradun, Uttarakhand- 248001. Vs. Dehradun. PAN-AAWFP7198N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. and Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. Department by Shri S.K. Chaterjee, CIT- DR Date of Hearing 21/07/2026 Date of Pronouncement 21/07/2026 O R D E R PER SANJAY AWASTHI, AM: 1. This appeal arises from the order dated 09.04.2026, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter as ‘the Act’), by Ld. CIT(A)-3, NOIDA.

1.2 In this case, the Ld. CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order after the assessee did not respond to a number of opportunities given by him. In this regard on page 2 of the impugned order, the many opportunities given by the Ld. CIT(A) have been duly mentioned.

2 ITA No.288 /DDN/2026 M/s Pearl Heights vs. DCIT

Right at the outset, the Ld. AR stated that due to a communication gap between the assessee and his tax consultant, there was no compliance before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. AR brought to our notice pages 1 & 2 of the impugned orders and requested that the assessee may be provided one more opportunity to present the facts before the Ld. CIT(A).

2.1 The Ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below.

We have considered the rival submissions of Ld. AR/DR and have gone through the facts before us. We find that the assessee has indeed been very casual before the Ld. CIT(A) who has provided as many as ten opportunities of hearing. At this stage, we are concerned at the fact that on as many as three occasions, the assessee has sought adjournment and, therefore, it is evident that the notices providing opportunities were duly received by the assessee. We would be failing in our duty in case we were to condone such behavior on the part of the assessee. Accordingly, we deem it fit to impost a cost of Rs.5000/- in this case, payable by 31.09.2026 to Dehradun District Legal Services Authority. The cost so levied shall be deposited u/s 17 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.

3.1 We are also aware that judicial forums are meant to dispense justice and, in this case, while the conduct of the assessee deserves costs to be imposed on him but at the same time the assessee deserves a fair hearing in his case. Accordingly, we deem it fit to set aside the impugned order in the appeal and remand the same to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. We would expect the assessee to be vigilant

3 ITA No.288 /DDN/2026 M/s Pearl Heights vs. DCIT

about the opportunities that would be provided by the Ld. CIT(A) for hearing in his case.

In the result, this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 21/07/2027.

S - Sd/- Sd/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) (SANJAY AWASTHI) VICE PRESIDEN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 28/07/2026 *PK, Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI (Dehradun Circuit Bench, Dehradun)

M/S PEARL HEIGHTS,UTTARAKHAND vs. DCIT/ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN, UTTARAKHAND

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