SUBHAS CHANDRA BHOWMICK,SILIGURI vs. I.T.O., WARD - 1(2), SILIGURI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1252/KOL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 July 2026AY 2018-20193 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without deciding the issues on merits, violating Section 250(6). Therefore, the appeal was restored to the AO for a decision on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was decided ex-parte by the CIT(A) due to non-compliance with notices. The assessee's counsel admitted to partial compliance before the AO and requested the case be restored for re-adjudication on merits.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in deciding the appeal ex-parte without adjudicating the merits of the case. Whether the assessee should be granted an opportunity for re-adjudication on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, KOLKATA

For Appellant: Shri Sujit Basu &
For Respondent: Shri Md. Gayasuddin Ansari, DR
Hearing: 14.07.2026Pronounced: 22.07.2026

Per Rajesh Kumar, AM:

This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 25.02.2026 for the AY 2018-19.

2.

At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the appeal has been decided by the ld. CIT (A) ex-parte

there was partial compliance . Therefore, the ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed that the appeal may be restored to the file of the ld. AO for re-adjudication on merits.

3.

The ld. DR on the other hand did not raise any objection to the prayers of the ld. AR.

4.

We, after hearing the submission of the parties and perusing the material available on record, find that apparently the case was decided ex-parte by the ld. CIT (A). We note that despite numerous notices, none responded and made compliances before the ld. CIT (A) and the ld. CIT (A) passed an ex-parte order in limine without deciding the issues on merits, which in our opinion is in violation of Provisions of Section 250(6) of the Act. We further note that there was partial compliance before the Assessing Officer too. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, this appeal is restored to the file of the learned AO with a direction to decide the same on merit after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. It is further clarified that assessee should also not seek any adjournments unless otherwise required for valid and reasonable cause. The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 22.07.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY) (RAJESH KUMAR) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Kolkata, Dated: 22.07.2026 Sudip Sarkar, Sr.PS Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT DR, ITAT, 4. 5. Guard file. BY ORDER, True Copy//

Asst. Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →