What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s ex parte order and restored the matter to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh adjudication. This was done to grant the assessee one final opportunity to present its case, subject to payment of costs.

The assessee failed to appear before the CIT(A) despite multiple opportunities, leading to an ex parte decision. The assessee then filed an appeal before the ITAT against the CIT(A)'s order.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in deciding the appeal ex parte due to the assessee's non-appearance, and whether a final opportunity should be granted to the assessee.

Paramjeet Kaur, Fatehabad vs ITO | ITAT Chandigarh 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DIVISION BENCH, ‘B’ CHANDIGARH

Before: SHRI LALIET KUMAR & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL

For Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR

Hearing: 30.06.2026Pronounced: 14.07.2026

आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण,च�डीगढ़ �यायपीठ, च�डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘B’ CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 1059/CHD/2025 �नधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Paramjeet Kaur, The ITO, 175, Office Colony, Vs Ward-1, Tohana, Fatehabad. Fatehabad. �थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: DNAPK9133C अपीलाथ�/Appellant ��यथ�/Respondent Assessee by : None Revenue by : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 30.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 14.07.2026

PHYSICAL HEARING O R D E R PER LALIET KUMAR, JM

This is an appeal filed by the assessee feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC [in short ‘the CIT (A)’] dated 16.12.2024 passed for assessment year 2015-16.

At the time of the hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee-SSC despite the matter being called for a hearing.

ITA No.1059/CHD/2025 A.Y.2015-16 2

The learned Departmental Representative, however,

submitted that the learned CIT(A) had decided the appeal ex parte

after recording the persistent non-appearance of the assessee.

Our attention was specifically drawn to paragraph 4.3 of the

impugned order, wherein the learned CIT(A) has discussed the

repeated non-compliance on the part of the assessee. It was

further submitted that, notwithstanding such non-appearance,

the learned CIT(A) had proceeded to adjudicate the issues on

merits on the basis of the material available on record.

In these circumstances, as none appeared on behalf of the

assessee, we have proceeded to hear the learned Departmental

Representative and to examine the record available before us.

We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned

Departmental Representative and perused the material available

on record. It is an undisputed fact that the Assessing Officer

completed the assessment and the assessee thereafter preferred

an appeal before the learned CIT(A). However, the assessee failed

to remain vigilant in prosecuting the appellate proceedings and

did not avail the opportunities afforded by the learned CIT(A).

ITA No.1059/CHD/2025 A.Y.2015-16 3

Consequently, the appeal came to be decided ex parte on the basis

of the material available on record.

At the same time, considering the principles of natural justice

and the fact that the first appellate authority is vested with wide

powers to adjudicate the issues on facts and law, we are of the

considered opinion that one final opportunity deserves to be

granted to the assessee to substantiate its case before the learned

CIT(A). Such indulgence, however, cannot be granted without

imposing reasonable costs, as the assessee's own lack of diligence

has resulted in unnecessary litigation and avoidable consumption

of judicial time.

Accordingly, in the interest of substantial justice, we set

aside the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) and restore the

matter to his file for adjudication afresh on merits after affording

the assessee a reasonable and effective opportunity of being

heard. This restoration shall be subject to the condition that the

assessee deposits costs of ₹5,000/- with the Poor Patient Relief

Fund, PGIMER, Chandigarh, within a period of two months from

the date of receipt of this order and furnishes proof of such

deposit before the learned CIT(A). In the event of failure to comply

ITA No.1059/CHD/2025 A.Y.2015-16 4

with the aforesaid condition, the learned CIT(A) shall be at liberty

to proceed in accordance with law.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for

statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 14.07.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) (LALIET KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER “Poonam” आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant 1. ��यथ�/ The Respondent 2. आयकर आयु�/ CIT 3. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, च�डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 4. गाड� फाईल/ Guard File 5.

सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar

PARAMJEET KAUR,FATEHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, FATEHABAD

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments