What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, decided to grant one more opportunity to the assessee by remanding the matter back to the CIT(A). This opportunity is conditional upon the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 5,000/-.

The assessee's appeal was filed against the order of the CIT(A) which confirmed the addition made by the AO under Section 144. The assessee remained ex-parte before the CIT(A) and also did not appear before the ITAT.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A) after being ex-parte in the previous proceedings.

Baldev Singh, Kurukshetra vs ITO | s.144 | ITAT Chandigarh 2026

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

Before: SHRI LALIET KUMAR & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL

For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT Sr.DR

Hearing: 06.07.2026Pronounced: 14.07.2026

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 28.07.2025 passed for assessment year 2015-16.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee.

ITA No.1111/CHD/2026 A.Y.2015-16 2

The assessee was ex-parte before the ld.CIT (Appeals). The

ld.CIT (Appeals) has passed the order dated 28.07.2025 confirming

the addition made by the AO u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act.

In the proceedings before this Tribunal, it is found that the

assessee was ex-parte before the ld.CIT (Appeals). Therefore, we

are of the considered opinion that one more opportunity deserves

to be granted to the assessee to substantiate the claims made in

the grounds of appeal.

The ld. DR has opposed the grant of opportunity.

Having heard the contentions of the ld. Sr.DR, in the interest

of justice, the matter is remanded back to the file of ld.CIT

(Appeals) with direction to decide the appeal afresh in accordance

with law. The assessee is directed to fully cooperate in the remand

proceedings and furnish all supporting evidence and explanations

as may be called for by the ld.CIT (Appeals).

However, while granting one more opportunity in the interest

of justice, we deem it fit and proper to impose a cost upon the

assessee. Accordingly, the restoration of the matter to the file of

the ld.CIT (Appeals) shall be subject to payment of the cost of Rs.

ITA No.1111/CHD/2026 A.Y.2015-16 3

5,000/- to be deposited by the assessee in the “Poor Patient

Welfare Fund” of PGIMER, Chandigarh, within a period of two

weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The assessee shall

furnish proof of such deposit before the Registry within the

stipulated period.

It is made clear that in the event of failure on the part of the

assessee to deposit the aforesaid cost and furnish proof thereof

within the prescribed period, the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A)

shall automatically stand revived, and the appeal of the assessee

shall be deemed to have been dismissed.

In the result, the appeal filed by 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”

ITA No.1111/CHD/2026 A.Y.2015-16 4 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

BALDEV SINGH,KURUKSHETRA vs. ITO WARD-1 KURUKSHETRA, KURUKSHETRA

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