HARYANA BACKWARD CLASSES AND ECONOMICALLY WEAKER SECTION KALYAN NIGAM,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO WARD 2(1), CHANDIGARH

The ld. counsel for the assessee, at the outset submitted that assessee has instituted its appeal before the CIT A.Y.2020-21 2 (Appeals) on 14.07.2025, as is evident from the cause title of the case in the order of the CIT (Appeals). This appeal has been dismissed on 17.07.2025, just after three days without issuing any Show Cause Notice to the assessee.

With the assistance of ld. Representative, we have gone through the record carefully. Section 250 of the Income Tax Act provides procedure required to be followed by the CIT (Appeals) while deciding the appeals. Sub-clause (1) of Section 250 contemplates that CIT (Appeals) would fix a date and place for hearing of appeal and shall give notice of the same to the appellant and to the AO against whose order the appeal is preferred. This mandatory procedure has not been followed by the First Appellate Authority, therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable.

We find that assessment order is also an ex-parte order, though procedural error crept in at the level of CIT (Appeals) but by restoring the proceedings before the CIT (Appeals) would lead to two different proceedings, namely, one before the CIT (Appeals) and the other one before the AO when a remand report would be called upon by the CIT (Appeals) on A.Y.2020-21 3 the disputed facts. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to set aside both the orders and restore all the issues to the file of AO for fresh adjudication. Accordingly, appeal of the assessee is allowed. The impugned orders are set aside and all the issues are relegated to the file of AO for fresh adjudication after due service of notice to the assessee.