AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(1), NEW DELHI
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the ITAT had committed a procedural irregularity by passing an ex-parte order without hearing the appellant. The Court noted from the ordersheets that on three previous dates, the Tribunal did not function, and the matter was adjourned. Crucially, on 24.12.2025, when the matter was adjourned to 02.02.2026, no notice of hearing was issued to the appellant. The Court emphasized Rule 20 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, which mandates the Tribunal to intimate parties about the date and time of hearing. The absence of service of notice upon the appellant was considered a complete non-compliance with Rule 20, leading to a manifest failure of justice. Consequently, the order passed by the ITAT on 02.02.2026 was set aside. The appeal was restored to the ITAT for a fresh decision in accordance with the law, with a direction to intimate a fresh date of hearing to both parties and to hear the appeal without being influenced by the previous ex-parte order.
What were the facts?
The appellant, Airports Authority of India, filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenging an order dated 02.02.2026 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Bench ‘F’, Delhi. The appellant contended that the ITAT had erred by proceeding ex-parte and then rejecting the appeal on merits. The appellant provided a history of ordersheets indicating that on multiple previous dates (08.09.2025, 30.10.2025, and 24.12.2025), the Bench did not assemble, and the matter was adjourned by the office. On 02.02.2026, the ITAT took up the appeal for hearing and disposed of it ex-parte without verifying if notice of hearing had been issued or served to the appellant. The appellant asserted it had not received any notice.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the ITAT erred in proceeding ex-parte and deciding the appeal on merits without issuing notice of hearing to the appellant, thereby violating Rule 20 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963? Assessee's Contention: The appellant argued that the ITAT committed a procedural irregularity by proceeding ex-parte and deciding the appeal on merits without issuing notice of hearing. They relied on the ordersheets showing adjournments due to the Bench not assembling and asserted they did not receive any notice, making the ITAT's decision contrary to law. Revenue's Contention: The respondent (DCIT) could not refute the appellant's assertion that no notice of hearing was issued. However, they submitted that since the appeal was decided on merits, the High Court should decide the present appeal on the merits of the issues involved.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R %
2026
By way of the present appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which has been preferred by the appellant against order dated 02.02.2026 passed in Appeal No. 2408/Del./2017 by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Bench ‘F’ Delhi (hereinafter referred to as „Tribunal‟).
Mr.Ruchesh Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has firstly erred in proceeding ex-parte and then, rejecting the appeal on merit.
While taking the Court through the ordersheets, which the appellant has placed on record (Annexure A-6), learned counsel pointed out that on 08.09.2025, the Bench did not assemble and office had adjourned it to This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/08/2026 at 11:08:58
2025; on 30.10.2025 also, the Bench did not function and thus, the hearing was adjourned to 24.12.2025; on 24.12.2025, the Bench did not function as well, and the case got adjourned to 02.02.2026. And on 02.02.2026, the members of the Tribunal took up the appeal for hearing and proceeded to dispose of the appeal ex-parte, without inquiring as to whether the notice of hearing was issued/served.
Mr.Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant asserted that the appellant did not receive any notice of hearing and thus, the Tribunal has erred in deciding the appeal on merit.
Inviting court’s attention towards assertion made in Para 11 of the memo of appeal, learned counsel argued that without issuance of any notice of hearing, the Tribunal ought not to have proceeded to decide the appeal that too on merit.
Mr.Puneet Rai, learned Senior Standing Counsel could not refute the appellant’s contention that no notice of hearing was issued to the appellant. He, however, submitted that since the appeal has been decided on merit, the appeal be decided on the merits of the issues involved.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
On perusal of the impugned order, we find that the same has been passed ex-parte, without hearing the appellant.
On perusal of the ordersheets of the proceedings which the appellant have placed before us, we find that the Tribunal has committed a procedural irregularity. It is apparent that on three previous dates, viz. 08.09.2025, 30.10.2025 and 24.12.2025, the Tribunal did not function and the matter was adjourned or date was given by the Office of the Tribunal.
On 24.12.2025, when the matter got adjourned to 02.02.2026, as This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/08/2026 at 11:08:58
contented out by the appellant, no notice of hearing was issued to the appellant. Without ascertaining as to whether the notice has been issued and served or not, the learned members have proceeded to hear the appeal and decide it on merit.
We may bring to the notice of all concerned that Rule 20 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as ‘The Rule of 1963’) which clearly provides that the Tribunal shall intimate parties about the date and time of hearing of the appeal. It will not be out of place to reproduce Rule 20 of the Rule of 1963 which reads as under:-
“Rule 20 - Date and place of hearing of appeal, how fixed. The date and place of hearing of the appeal shall be fixed with reference to the current business of the Tribunal and the time necessary for the service of the notice of appeal, so as to allow the parties sufficient time to appear and be heard in support of or against the appeal.”
In the absence of the service of notice upon the appellant, we are of the view that there has been a complete non-compliance with Rule 20 of the Rules of 1963 and consequently, manifest failure of justice. Hence, the order passed by the Tribunal on 02.02.2026 is clearly contrary to law.
We, therefore, set aside the order dated 02.02.2026 and restore the appeal to the Tribunal, to be decided afresh in accordance with law.
The Tribunal shall intimate fresh date of hearing to both the parties and thereafter, hear the appeal in accordance with law without being influenced by the previous order which has been passed in absentia. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/08/2026 at 11:08:58
The appeal stands allowed. All pending applications stand disposed of.
DINESH MEHTA, J.
RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA, J. AUGUST 10, 2026 neelam This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/08/2026 at 11:08:58
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Arj Exim INDIA vs. Additional Commissioner Of CGST, Appeals-Ii, New Delhi And OrsDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
- The State Of Bihar Through The Commissioner Of State Tax vs. Kaushlendra KumarPatna · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Larsen And Toubro Limited vs. Joint Commissioner Of Central GST And Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- T C Global INDIA Private Limited vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central GST, North DelhiDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Kamlasana Impex Private Limited vs. Director General Of GST Intelligence (Hq) Delhi) & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
