BALAJI FERROUS AND NON-FERROUS,HARYANA vs. ITO, WARD - 1, JIND, JIND
आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, चÖडीगढ़ Ûयायपीठ, चÖडीगढ़
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH, ‘A’, CHANDIGARH
BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER &
SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 627/CHD/2025
Ǔनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Year : 2021-22
Balaji Ferous and Non-
Ferrous,
Patiala Road, Near Amba
Marble,
Narwana, Jind,
Haryana
बनाम
Vs.
The ITO,
Ward -1
Jind
èथायी लेखा सं./ PAN NO: AAWFB4551B
अपीलाथȸ/Appellant
Ĥ×यथȸ/Respondent
( PHYSICAL HEARING )
Ǔनधा[ǐरती कȧ ओर से/Assessee by : Sh. Sachin Kumar, CA
राजèव कȧ ओर से/ Revenue by : Sh. Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख/Date of Hearing
:
09.12.2025
उदघोषणा कȧ तारȣख/Date of Pronouncement
:
15.12.2025
आदेश/Order
Per Krinwant Sahay, AM :
Appeal in this case has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 06.02.2025 passed by the Ld.
627-Chd-2025
Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal
Centre (NFAC), Delhi.
2. Though numerous grounds have been raised by the Assessee but the sole grievance of the Assessee is that the Assessee was not provided any opportunity of hearing to present and explain his case before the authorities below, as both the orders passed by the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) were ex-parte.
3. During proceedings before us, ld. Counsel for the Assessee reinterred that it is an ex-parte order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). The reason for non-compliance of notices issued by the CIT(A) to the Assessee was that the Ld.
CIT(A) did not issue the notices on the address mentioned in Form No. 35. Neither any notice was received by the Assessee nor any notice was served on the Assessee by any means by the Department. Therefore, ld. Counsel for the Assessee requested for remanding it back to the file of the Assessing Officer.
4. Per contra, the ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below.
627-Chd-2025
We have considered the orders passed by the authorities below and we find that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed and ex-parte order. As per counsel of the Assessee, no notice was issued by the Ld. CIT(A) on the address given in Form No. 35. It was because of this reason that the Assessee could not receive any notice and there was no compliance from the Assessee’s side. We think that the CIT(A) should have made all efforts to serve a notice on the Assessee on the address given in Form No. 35 but that has not been done in this case. Therefore, keeping in view the element of natural justice in mind, we are inclined to remand this case back to the file of the Assessing Officer. 7. Accordingly, the case is remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer for adjudication afresh on merit, by considering the submissions and documents produced by the Assessee and the relevant material available on record. Needless to say, that the AO shall afford due, reasonable and adequate opportunity of hearing to the Assessee. The Assessee, no doubt, shall cooperate in the fresh proceedings before the AO. All pleas available under 627-Chd-2025
the law shall remain so available to the assessee. Ordered accordingly.
8. In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed for Statistical Purposes.
Order pronounced on 15.12.2025. ( LALIET KUMAR )
Accountant Member
“आर.के.”
आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत / Copy of the order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथȸ/ The Appellant
2. Ĥ×यथȸ/ The Respondent
3. आयकर आयुÈत/ CIT
4. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकर अपीलȣय आͬधकरण, चÖडीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH
5. गाड[ फाईल/ Guard File
सहायक पंजीकार/