IMANUL HOQUE,MANGALDOI vs. ITO WARD, MANGALDOI

ITA 424/GTY/2025Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 March 2026AY 2018-193 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the NFAC had indeed passed an ex-parte order without deciding the issues on merit, which was a violation of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal reasoned that in the interest of justice and fair play, the appeal should be restored to the file of the NFAC. The NFAC was directed to decide the appeal on merit after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The assessee was also cautioned against seeking adjournments unless for valid and reasonable cause. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. No specific issues were expressly left undecided, as the matter was remitted for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Imanul Hoque, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) challenging an order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for Assessment Year 2018-19. The assessee's counsel submitted that the NFAC had passed an ex-parte order. The Revenue's counsel did not oppose this submission. The ITAT noted that the NFAC had decided the case ex-parte, despite numerous notices, without deciding the issues on merit. This was considered a violation of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. The amount in dispute is not specified. The procedural history involves the NFAC passing an ex-parte order and the assessee's subsequent appeal to the ITAT.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) erred in passing an ex-parte order without deciding the appeal on merit, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the NFAC passed an ex-parte order and prayed for the issue to be restored to the file of the NFAC for a decision on merit. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue did not oppose the assessee's prayer.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘GAUHATI BENCH’, GUWAHATI

Before: SHRIDUVVURU RL REDDY, VP & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Sharma, AR

For Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar Karnani, DR

Hearing: 10.03.2026Pronounced: 13.03.2026

This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 22.10.2025 for the AY 2018-19.

At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the ld. CIT (A) has passed an ex-parte order. The ld. Counsel for the assessee therefore prayed that the issue may kindly be restored to the file of the ld. CIT (A), so that issue could be decided on merit afresh.

The ld. DR on the other hand did not oppose the counsel of the assessee.

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

Order pronounced on 13.03.2026.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →