What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT set aside the orders of the CIT(A) due to violation of natural justice and non-speaking orders. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The assessee appealed to the CIT(A) against the additions made by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeals without providing a sufficient opportunity of being heard, passing non-speaking orders.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) passed orders in violation of principles of natural justice by not providing adequate opportunity of hearing and by passing non-speaking orders.

Hardeep Singh Chauhan, Mandi… vs ITO | ITAT Chandigarh 2026

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च�ीगढ़ �ायपीठ “A” , च�ीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: HYBRID MODE �ी लिलत कुमार, �ाियक सद� एवं �ी मनोज कुमार अ�वाल, लेखा सद� BEFORE: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR, JM & SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 240 & 241/Chd/2025 �नधा�रण वष� / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Hardeep Singh Chauhan, बनाम ITO, M/s Sahib Steel International, Ward-1, Bank of Baroda Building, Mandi Gobindgarh Motia Khan, Mandi Gobindgrh 147301 �ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: BGPPS4123R अपीलाथ�/Appellant ��थ�/Respondent िनधा�रती की ओर से/Assessee by : Sh. Ashwani Kumar, CA (Virtual) राज� की ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Parbodh Sharma, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 25.06.2026 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 02.07.2026 आदेश/Order PER LALIET KUMAR, J.M: These two appeals are filed by the Assessee bearing ITA Nos 240 & 241/Chd/2025 feeling aggrieved by the separate orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, each dated 13.01.2025, for the A.Ys. 2013-14 and 2014-15.

2 240 & 241/Chd/2025 2. From the identical grounds raised by the Assessee in both the appeals it is gathered that the main grievance of the Assessee is that the impugned Orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A) are arbitrary and the Ld. CIT(A) has decided the appeals without giving sufficient and reasonable opportunity of being heard. The ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A) are legally unsustainable, bad in law, and void ab initio, as it was passed in absolute violation of the principles of natural justice and as such the Assessee deserves a reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard. A prayer was made to remand the appeals back to the CIT(A) for deciding the issues afresh in both the matters. 3. The Ld. Departmental Representative, on the other hand, relied upon the findings recorded in the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has given proper and due opportunity of being heard to the Assessee by issuing notices through Email but the Assessee either not responded or sought adjournment without pointing out any valid substantial reasons.

We have heard the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) and perused the material available on record including the impugned orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A). From the record, it is evident that the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeals of the assessee by simply upholding the additions made by the Assessing Officer. The orders

3 240 & 241/Chd/2025 passed by the learned CIT(A) for the respective assessment years are entirely non-speaking. It is a well-settled legal principle that matters should ordinarily be decided on merits by way of a reasoned, speaking order, which the learned CIT(A) failed to do in the present case. Concurrently, we observe that the assessee was also negligent in pursuing its appeals, having failed to comply with notices issued by the Department via e.mail and having sought adjournments without establishing any specific exigency.

Having regard to the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate, in the interest of substantial justice, to set aside the impugned orders of the learned CIT(A) and restore the issues to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to adjudicate both appeals afresh on merits. However, this restoration is subject to the condition that the assessee shall deposit a cost of ₹5,000/- per appeal into the Poor Relief Fund, PGI, Chandigarh, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order, and furnish proof of such deposit before the CIT(A). Upon compliance with the said condition, the CIT(A) shall afford the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard and adjudicate the issues afresh in accordance with the law. The assessee is further directed to present its case before the learned CIT(A) as and when called upon, and to refrain from causing any unnecessary delays in the disposal of the appeals.

4 240 & 241/Chd/2025

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 02.07.2026

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

सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar

HARDEEP SINGH CHAUHAN,MANDI GOBINDGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MANDI GOBINDGARH, SIRHIND

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments