Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee preferred an appeal against an ex-parte order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi. The assessee claimed that notices were not effectively received, leading to their absence and lack of an opportunity to present their case. This resulted in prejudice to the assessee.
Held
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's plea of non-receipt of notices and the ex-parte disposal of the appeal. Considering the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication, ensuring an adequate opportunity of hearing.
Key Issues
Whether the ex-parte appellate order passed without affording due opportunity of hearing to the assessee is sustainable and whether the reopening of assessment and addition made is valid.
Sections Cited
147, 69C
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘J (SMC
आदेश / O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee assailing the order dated 25.10.2025 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, arising out of the assessment framed under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2016–17.
Chandulal Navjibhai Patel 2. Through the grounds of appeal, the assessee has raised multiple grievances. The principal challenges are threefold: firstly, to the ex parte nature of the appellate order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals); secondly, to the very assumption of jurisdiction under section 147 of the Act for reopening the completed assessment; and lastly, to the addition of Rs. 30,30,500/- made by the Assessing Officer by invoking the provisions of section 69C of the Act.
3. At the time of hearing before us, it has been stated on behalf of the assessee that the notices issued by the learned CIT(A) could not be effectively received, as a result of which the assessee remained unrepresented and was deprived of an opportunity to place its case on merits. It was thus submitted that the appellate order came to be passed without affording due and meaningful opportunity of hearing, thereby resulting in serious prejudice to the assessee.
4. It has been specifically pleaded that the assessee is keen to pursue the appellate proceedings diligently and undertakes to fully cooperate before the learned CIT(A) if one final opportunity is granted. In this backdrop, a prayer has been made that the entire matter may be restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for adjudication afresh in accordance with law, after granting due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
5. We have carefully considered the submissions made and have perused the material available on record. It is well settled that appellate proceedings are meant to advance the cause of substantive justice and not to be reduced to a mere formality. The right of appeal carries with it a concomitant right of effective hearing, and any adjudication made in violation of the principles of natural justice cannot be sustained.
6. In the present case, considering the specific plea of non- receipt of notices and the fact that the appeal before the learned CIT(A) has been disposed of ex parte, we are of the considered view that the interests of justice would be best served if the matter is restored to the file of the learned CIT(A). This would enable a proper and comprehensive adjudication on all issues raised by the assessee, including the challenge to reopening as well as the addition made under section 69C of the Act.
7. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the issues involved, we set aside the impugned appellate order and restore the entire matter to the file of the learned CIT(A), who shall decide the appeal afresh in accordance with law, after affording adequate and effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to extend full cooperation and to diligently pursue the appellate proceedings.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 12th January, 2026.