CAIRNHILL DEVELOPMENT PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , KOLKATA

ITA 1425/KOL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 October 2026AY 2016-20173 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) was ex-parte, with the assessee not participating in the proceedings. Furthermore, the Ld. CIT(A) had not decided all grounds of appeal on their merits. The Tribunal also observed that the assessee had not made full compliance even before the Assessing Officer. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal deemed it fit to restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for de-novo assessment. The Assessing Officer was directed to provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee before passing a fresh assessment order in accordance with law. The assessee was also directed to participate in the assessment proceedings without fail. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Cairnhill Development Private Limited, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) against the order of the NFAC, Delhi (Ld. CIT(A)) dated 10.06.2026 for Assessment Year 2022-23. There was a delay of 49 days in filing the appeal, which was condoned. The original assessment order was passed ex-parte under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on 26.11.2018, with certain additions. The assessee's appeal against this order before the Ld. CIT(A) was dismissed on 12.12.2025. The present appeal before the ITAT challenges the Ld. CIT(A)'s order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order in violation of the principles of natural justice, without deciding all grounds of appeal on merits? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and procedural fairness). Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that it could not make proper compliance before the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) failed to decide all grounds of appeal, leading to an ex-parte order that violated the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the appeal should be allowed. Revenue's contention: The revenue contended that the assessee is a chronic defaulter who failed to make proper compliance before the lower authorities. Consequently, the orders passed by the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) were in accordance with law and require no interference. The revenue sought dismissal of the appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH,

Before: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

For Appellant: Shri Aniket Jalan, AR

For Respondent: Shri Raman Garg, CIT, DR

Hearing: 26.10.2026Pronounced: 28.10.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1425/KOL/2026 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Cairnhill Development Private Vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Kolkata Limited 83, SP Mukherjee Road, Kolkata-700026 [PAN: AADCC5172H] APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Aniket Jalan, AR Respondent by : Shri Raman Garg, CIT, DR Date of hearing : 26.10.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 28.10.2026 O R D E R PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER: The present Appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of the NFAC, Delhi ‘Ld. CIT(A)’ for short) dated 10.06.2026, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”, for short) for the Assessment Year 2022-23.

There is a delay of 49 days in filing the present Appeal. Assessee filed an application for condonation of delay explaining the cause for the delay. For the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay, the delay of 49 days in filing the present Appeal is hereby condoned.

ITA No.1425/Kol/2026 Cairnhill Development Private Limited; A.Y: 2016-17 3. Brief facts of the case are that, an Assessment Order came to be passed u/s 144 of the Act on 26.11.2018 by making certain additions. Aggrieved by the Assessment Order dated 26.11.2018, Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide Order dated 12.12.2025, dismissed the Appeal of the Assessee. As against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 12.12.2025, Assessee preferred the present Appeal.

The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the Assessee could not make proper compliance before the Assessing Officer and before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) has not decided all the Grounds of the Appeal of the Assessee and the ex-parte order impugned came to be passed in violation of principals of natural justice. Thus, sought for allowing the Appeal.

The Ld. Department's Representative submitted that the Assessee is a chronic defaulter who has not made proper compliance before the Lower Authorities, therefore, both the Assessing Officer as well as the Ld. CIT(A) have passed the respective orders in accordance with law, which requires no interference, thus by relying on the orders of the Lower Authorities sought for dismissal of the Appeal.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is ex-parte,

ITA No.1425/Kol/2026 Cairnhill Development Private Limited; A.Y: 2016-17 wherein the Assessee has not participated in the proceedings and the Ld. CIT(A) has not decided all the Grounds of Appeal on its merits. Even before the Assessing Officer, Assessee has not made full compliance. In view of the above, in the interest of justice, we deem it fit to restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for de-novo assessment. Needless to say, the Assessing Officer shall provide opportunity of being heard to the Assessee before passing the assessment order in accordance with law. The Assessee is also directed to participate in assessment proceedings without fail.

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 28.10.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (RAKESH MISHRA) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 28.10.2026 DP, PS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. Pr. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. CIT(DR) MANISH Digitally signed //TRUE COPY// by MANISH KUMAR KUMAR BHOI Date: 2026.10.29 BHOI 12:13:08 +05'30' Page | 3

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →