What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with one more opportunity to defend its case on merits, ensuring a fair hearing.

The assessee's appeals were decided ex-parte by the CIT(A) due to non-compliance. The assessee requested another opportunity to present its case on merits before the lower authorities.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without considering the merits of the case, and if the assessee should be granted another opportunity to be heard.

Megapix Vintrade Pvt. Ltd. vs I.T.O., Ward - 10(3) | ITAT Kolkata 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH: KOLKATA

Before: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ “सी’’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH: KOLKATA �ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सट�य एवं �ी �द�प कुमार चौबे, �या�यक सद�य के सम� [Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member &Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member] I.T.A. Nos. 2993 & 2994/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2017-18 Megapix Vintrade Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO, Ward-10(3), Kolkata

(PAN: AAICM 4184 C) ( अपीलाथ� ) Respondent / ��यथ� Appellant / Date of Hearing / सुनवाई 19.05.2026 क� �त�थ Date of Pronouncement/ 01.06.2026 आदेश उ�घोषणा क� �त�थ For the Appellant/ Shri Vinod Jain, AR �नधा�रती क� ओर से For the Respondent/ Shri Sandeep Kumar Mehta, Addl. CIT राज�व क� ओर से Sr. DR

ORDER / आदेश Per Rajesh Kumar, AM:

These are the appeals preferred by the assessee against the separate orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-Addl/JCIT(A)-2, Chennai (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 14.10.2025 for the AY 2015-16 & 2017-18 respectively.

2 I.T.A. No.2993 & 2994/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18 Megapix Vintrade Pvt. Ltd. 2. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order without considering the merit of the case. The ld. Counsel of the assessee prayed before the Bench that the assessee may kindly be given one more opportunity to defend its case on merit before the lower authorities by restoring this appeal of the assessee.

The Ld. D.R on the other hand strongly objected the prayers of the Ld. A.R by submitting that despite several opportunities granted, the assessee did not appear and therefore the said request of the counsel of the assessee may kindly be dismissed.

After hearing the rival parties and perusing the material on record, we observe that appellate order was framed ex-parte due to non-compliance on the part of the assessee on different dates and therefore the case of the assessee was decided without considering the merits of the case. Therefore , in order to meet the ends of justice, the assessee deserves to be given one more opportunity to defend its case on merits before the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly we restore the appeal to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for the reasons cited above with a direction to decide the appeals on merits by affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing. Simultaneously we also direct the assessee to cooperate in the disposal of these appeals.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order is pronounced in the open court on 1st June, 2026

Sd/- Sd/- (Pradip Kumar Choubey /�द�प कुमार चौबे) (Rajesh Kumar/राजेश कुमार) Judicial Member/�या�यक सद�य Accountant Member/लेखा सद�य Dated: 1st June, 2026 SM, Sr. PS

3 I.T.A. No.2993 & 2994/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18 Megapix Vintrade Pvt. Ltd. Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant- Megapix Vintrade Pvt. Ltd., C/o, Jain Vinod K & Associates, 41A, A. J. C. Bose Road, Diamond Prestige Nirman, Suite NO. 613, 6th Floor, Kolkata-700017 2. Respondent – ITO, Ward-10(3), Kolkata 3. Ld. CIT(A)-Addl/JCIT(A)-2, Chennai 4. Pr. CIT- , Kolkata 5. DR, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata (sent through e-mail)

MEGAPIX VINTRADE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 10(3), KOLKATA

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments