What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex parte order and restored the matter for de novo adjudication. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present its case on merits before the CIT(A).

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was decided ex parte due to the assessee's non-appearance. The assessee's Director was undergoing medical treatment, which led to the non-compliance with notices.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in passing an ex parte order without affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee due to medical reasons.

Design Plaza Interiors Limited… vs DCIT | ITAT Bangalore 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI & SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

For Appellant: Smt. Bharti Sharma Advocate

PERSANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. The assessee has filed the present appeal against the impugned order dated 10.11.2025, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“learned CIT(A)”] for the assessment year 2018-19.

We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the materials available on record. In the present case, at the outset, it is evident that the learned CIT(A) has passed the orders ex parte due to the non-appearance of/on behalf of the assessee. Now, in the appeal before us, Page 1 of 3

ITA No.:274/Bang/2026

the assessee is duly represented by the learned AR and wishes to pursuethe litigation against the addition made by the AO. As regards the non-compliance with the notices issued by the learned CIT(A), the learned AR submitted that the Director of the assessee company was not keeping well and was under continuous medical treatment. In this regard, the learned AR also placed on record the medical reports/prescriptions of the Director of the assessee company.

Therefore, in view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that, in the interest of justice, the assessee be granted one more opportunity to represent its case on merits before the learned CIT(A). Consequently, we deem it fit and proper to set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of the learned CIT(A) for de novo adjudication of the appeal on merits, after considering all the details/submissions as may be filed by the assessee. Needless to mention, no order shall be passed without affording reasonable and adequate opportunity of hearing to the parties. Further, the assessee is directed to appear before the learned CIT(A) on all dates of hearing as may be fixed without any default. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 12th June, 2026 Sd/- Sd/- (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) (SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER Bangalore, Dated, the 12th June, 2026. *VM* Page 2 of 3

ITA No.:274/Bang/2026

Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Bangalore 5. CIT(A)

By order Assistant Registrar, ITAT,Bangalore

Page 3 of 3

DESIGN PLAZA INTERIORS LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 2- 2- 1, BANGLORE, BANGLORE KARNATAKA

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