Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee is in appeal against an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) for AY 2017-18. The CIT(A) had issued multiple notices with significant gaps between them, making it difficult for the assessee to keep track of hearing dates.
Held
The Tribunal held that the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) was unsustainable due to the inconsistent and poorly communicated hearing dates in the notices. The significant addition to the tax liability was also considered disproportionate to any alleged negligence.
Key Issues
Whether the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) is sustainable given the procedural irregularities in issuing notices and the disproportionate penalty imposed.
Sections Cited
147, 148, 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DIVISION BENCH, ‘A’ CHANDIGARH
Before: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL
आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण,च�डीगढ़ �यायपीठ, च�डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘A’ CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ �नधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year: 2017-18 A V Jewellers, Vs The ITO, SCF 22, Sector 22-D, Chandigarh. Chandigarh. �थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAFFA7591K अपीलाथ�/Appellant ��यथ�/Respondent Assessee by : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CA and Ms. Shruti Khandelwal, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 19.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 17.03.2026 PHYSICAL HEARING O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, VP
The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘the CIT (A)’] dated 14.01.2025 passed for assessment year 2017-18.
The ld. counsel for the assessee, at the very outset submitted that impugned order has been passed ex-parte by the ld.CIT (Appeals), hence not sustainable.
ITA No.352/CHD/2025 A.Y.2017-18 2
The ld. DR, on the other hand submitted that ld.CIT (Appeals) has issued notices which were not complied with by the assessee, therefore, no fault can be attributed to the impugned order.
We have duly considered the rival contentions and gone through the record carefully. A perusal of the finding of the ld.CIT (Appeals) in paragraph No. 5.3 would reveal that ld.CIT (Appeals) has issued four notices, namely 26.03.2021, 10.02.2024, 15.10.2024 and 11.01.2025. We are of the view that these notices do not indicate the specific date by which appeal was fixed for hearing. There is a huge gap of three years in the first two notices. Then, there is a gap of roughly 8 months between second and third notice and a gap of three months in the last alleged notice. It is difficult for an assessee to keep a coherence of date of hearing in this manner. Apart from the above, we are of the view that punishment in the shape of tax liability on an addition of Rs.47,76,672/- is far disproportionate than any negligence, if attributed to the assessee. Therefore, in the interest of justice, assessee deserves one more chance.
A.Y.2017-18 3 Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order of the ld.CIT (Appeals) and restore all these issues to the file of ld.CIT (Appeals) for fresh adjudication after granting due opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 17.03.2026.