M/S. BALAJI STUDIOS,CHENNAI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, DELHI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the Ld.CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without deciding the grounds of appeal on merits. For the ends of justice and fair play, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the appeal back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
What were the facts?
The assessee preferred an appeal against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC. The assessee was aggrieved by an ex-parte order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) without deciding the appeal on merits.
What were the issues?
Whether the ex-parte order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) without deciding the appeal on merits is violative of natural justice, and if so, whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL
आदेश / O R D E R
PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM:
This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, (hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld.CIT(A)‘), Delhi, dated 27.08.2024 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as ‘AY‘) 2018-19.
None appeared for the assessee, even though, several notices have been issued to the assessee. After going through the grounds of appeal filed by the assessee, it is noted from the perusal of Ground No.1 that assessee is mainly aggrieved with the order of the Ld.CIT(A) passing ex- parte order qua assessee. In this regard, it is noted that the Ld.CIT(A)
1. has not passed the order on merits as required by sub-section (6) of section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ the Act‘). It is noted that the Ld.CIT(A) fixed the matter on several occasions but the assessee despite getting the notices had preferred to seek adjournment on various grounds which led the Ld.CIT(A) to observe that assessee was not interested in prosecuting his appeal, and dismissed the appeal, which action of the Ld.CIT(A) has been assailed being in violation of natural justice. The assessee by raising the ground of appeal prays for one more opportunity before the Ld.CIT(A).
Per contra, the Ld.DR does not want us to give one more innings to the assessee.
Having heard both the parties and after perusal of records, we note that impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) is an ex parte order qua assessee.
We note that the Ld.CIT(A) has not decided the grounds of appeal on merits as required u/s.250(6) of the Act. In such circumstances, for the ends of justice and fair play, we set aside the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) and restore the appeal back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) with a direction to decide the appeal on merits after hearing the assessee. The assessee is also directed to be diligent and file relevant documents/written submissions before the Ld.CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) is directed to decide the issue as per sub-section (6) of sec.250 of the Act.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on the 26th day of February, 2025, in Chennai.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Satyavan vs. Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax CommissionerUttarakhand · 4 Nov 2026
- Deepak Kumar Daiya vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.Calcutta · 4 Nov 2026
- Mohammed Fazil vs. State Of ChhattisgarhChhattisgarh · 4 Nov 2026
- Tvl. Devaerakkam Mercy Mary vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 4 Nov 2026
- Procter And Gamble Health LTD vs. Union Of INDIATelangana · 4 Nov 2026
