Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) on 21/08/2025 due to non-compliance with hearing notices. The assessee contended that non-attendance was not willful and they were prevented by reasonable cause, violating principles of natural justice. The tribunal noted that the first notice was issued a year after the appeal was filed, and subsequent notices also did not result in compliance.
Held
The tribunal held that while the CIT(A) followed due procedure in issuing notices, the delay in issuing the first notice and the short period for representation might have hindered the assessee. Therefore, the tribunal decided to grant another opportunity for the assessee to present their case on merits.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without providing adequate opportunity of being heard, violating principles of natural justice.
Sections Cited
143(3), 144B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SMC BENCH, MUMBAI
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "SMC" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Aditya Ramsingh Agarwal Suit No.226, Bussa Ind. Premises Co-Op. Society, Century Bazar Lane, Prabhadevi, Mumbai – 400025. Maharashtra. [PAN:AAAPA8348P] …………. Appellant Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 17(1), Mumbai Room No.232, Kautilya Bhawan, BKC, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051. …………. Respondent Maharashtra. Appearance For the Appellant/Assessee : None For the Respondent/Department : Ms. Deepika Arora Date Conclusion of hearing : 04.03.2026 Pronouncement of order : 06.03.2026
O R D E R
Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member:
The present appeal has been preferred against the Order, dated 21/08/2025, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’], whereby the Learned CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal of the Assessee against the Assessment Order, dated 26/03/2024, passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’], for the Assessment Year 2022-2023.
The registry has marked a delay of 6 days in filing the present appeal. The aforesaid delay is condoned after taking into Assessment Year 2022-2023 consideration the explanation offered by the Assessee vide Letter, dated 03/12/2025. Accordingly, we proceed to adjudicate upon the grounds raised by the Assessee in the present appeal.
The Assessee has, inter alia, raised following grounds of appeal:
1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in passing the order ex parte without providing proper and effective opportunity of being heard to the Appellant. 1.1 The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the non- attendance was neither deliberate nor willful, and the Appellant was prevented by reasonable cause from filing submissions or attending the hearing. 1.2 The order passed without granting adequate opportunity is violative of the principles of natural justice and therefore bad in law and liable to be quashed.”
4. We have heard Learned Departmental Representative on the above grounds and have perused the material on record.
5. On perusal of the Order impugned, we find that the Learned CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal preferred by the Assessee by way of an ex-party order since the Assessee had failed to comply with notice of hearing dated 14/05/2025, 16/06/2025 and 17/07/2025 issued by the Learned CIT(A).
6. By way of Ground No. 1 to 1.2 raised in the present appeal, it has been contended by the Assessee that the impugned order was passed by Learned CIT(A) without granting the Assessee reasonable opportunity of being heard. It has been further contended that non-appearance before the Learned CIT(A) was neither deliberate nor willful. Per contra the Learned Departmental Representative supported the order passed by Learned CIT(A) and submitted that despite having been granted sufficient opportunities the Assessee failed to make 2 Assessment Year 2022-2023 representation before the Learned CIT(A). Since the Assessee had failed enter appearance before the Learned CIT(A), the findings returned by the Assessing Officer were confirmed. Thus, there was no infirmity in the order passed by the Learned CIT(A).
7. We note that the Assessee had instituted the appeal on 19/04/2024. The first notice of hearing was issued after a year on 14/05/2025. Thereafter, two more notices were issued on 16/06/2025 and 17/07/2025. As there was no compliance, the appeal was dismissed vide order dated 21/08/2025. Thus, we note that all the opportunities granted by the Learned CIT(A) to the Assessee to make representation fell within a short period of over a period of three to four months only. Given the aforesaid, we deem it appropriate to grant another opportunity to the Assessee to make out the case on merits before the Learned CIT(A). Accordingly, we set aside the impugned Order, dated 21/08/2025 passed by the Learned CIT(A) with the directions to adjudicate the grounds raised in appeal afresh after granting reasonable opportunity of being heard. It is clarified that in case the Assessee fails to enter appearance or make submissions before the Learned CIT(A), the Learned CIT(A) would be at liberty to adjudicate the grounds raised on merits on the basis of material available on record. The Assessee is direct to take necessary steps to bring on record current email address for communication of notice of hearing. Assessee is also directed to be vigilant and track the appellate proceedings through Income Tax Business Application (ITBA). In terms of the aforesaid Ground No.1 to 1.2 raised by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes while the all the other grounds raised by the Assessee pertaining to the merits of the additions/disallowances are dismissed as having been rendered infructuous.
3 Assessment Year 2022-2023
In result, in terms of the paragraph 6 above, the appeal preferred by the Assessee is partly allowed.