What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal allowed the assessee an opportunity to contest the case on merits before the CIT(A) after payment of a cost of Rs. 5,000/-. The case was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing and order.

The assessee failed to represent its case before the CIT(A) due to circumstances beyond its control, leading to an ex-parte order. The assessee claimed non-receipt of notices and a desire to file additional evidence.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was denied a proper opportunity of being heard by the CIT(A) due to circumstances beyond their control.

Kawdu Pandurang Zade, Nagpur vs ITO | s.250 | ITAT Nagpur 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH :: NAGPUR

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh P. Shah, CA

For Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr. DR

Hearing: 09.06.2026Pronounced: 09.06.2026

PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi, (for short, “CIT(A)”), dated 23/01/2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “Act”), for the Assessment Year (AY) 2010-11.

ITA No. 193/NAG/2025 (Kawdu Pandurang Zade) 2. On hearing both the sides, we find that the assessee has raised a ground that the assessee had failed to represent its case before Ld. CIT(A) due to circumstances beyond his control. In this context, we find that the Ld. CIT(A) in para–6 records of having considered the facts of the case, assessment order and submissions made by the appellant, case law relied upon and also remand report of the Assessing Officer, to adjudicate the issues on merits.

Ld. Counsel has submitted that the assessee was not issued any notice for a long period and assessee intended to file additional evidences. However, the last notice issued was of 2023 and the impugned order has been passed on 23.01.2025.

Ld. DR has opposed the plea submitting that there is no mandate under law for Ld. CIT(A) to issue fresh notices once assessee’s submissions are complete.

After going through the impugned order and the findings of National Faceless Appeal Centre, in para 6.2, it comes up

ITA No. 193/NAG/2025 (Kawdu Pandurang Zade) that National Faceless Appeal Centre, has observed about assessee’s failure to file relevant evidences.

In the light of aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we give assessee an opportunity to contest on merits, however, subject to payment of cost of `. 5,000/– to be deposited in Prime Minister National Relief Fund. The Copy of deposit of the cost by way of challan shall be filed before Ld. First Appellate Authority within a period of 90 days.

The issues are accordingly rested to the files of Ld. CIT(A) to give afresh opportunity of hearing and pass an order afresh.

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

Order pronounced in open Court on 09.06.2026 Sd/– Sd/– ANUBHAV SHARMA KHETTRA MOHAN ROY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Nagpur: Dated: 09/06/2026 Z.U, P.S

ITA No. 193/NAG/2025 (Kawdu Pandurang Zade) Copy to: 1. The Assessee 2. The Revenue 3. The Pr.CIT concerned. 4. The DR, ITAT, Nagpur 5. Guard file. By order

Sr.PS/PS ITAT, Nagpur

KAWDU PANDURANG ZADE,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 5(3), NAGPUR

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