SRIGURU BYAPAR PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 9(1), KOLKATA

ITA 3018/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 March 2026AY 2018-20193 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) had passed the appellate order ex-parte due to the assessee's failure to respond to various notices issued during the appellate proceedings. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that notices were sent to an incorrect email address, leading to non-receipt and subsequent ex-parte order. To serve the ends of justice, the Tribunal decided to restore the appeal to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeal afresh after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The issue of the merits of the original appeal before the CIT(A) was not adjudicated upon by the ITAT.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sriguru Byapar Private Limited, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) challenging an order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 30.11.2025, for the Assessment Year 2018-19. The NFAC had dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte because the assessee failed to respond to notices. The assessee contended that the notices were sent to an incorrect email address (ashoksamanta@gmail.com) which was not the one provided in the Form 35, and therefore, the assessee did not receive them. The assessee requested that the appeal be restored to the NFAC for a fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The Revenue did not oppose this request, conceding that the NFAC order was passed without hearing the assessee.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) ex-parte, dismissing the assessee's appeal for non-response to notices, is sustainable in law, considering the assessee's claim of non-receipt of notices due to incorrect email communication (mixed question of law and fact). Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the ex-parte order was passed because notices were sent to an incorrect email address, ashoksamanta@gmail.com, which was not the address provided in the Form 35. Consequently, the assessee did not receive the notices and thus could not respond. In the interest of justice and fair play, the appeal should be restored to the Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh hearing. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue's representative fairly conceded that the order was passed by the Ld. CIT(A) without hearing the assessee.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM

This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 30.11.2025 for the AY 2018-19.

At the outset, the Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Appellate Order has been passed by the CIT(A) ex-parte dismissing the appeal of the assessee when the assessee failed to respond on the various dates allowed by the Ld. CIT(A). The Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted by referring to page no.3 of the

After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials on record, we find that Ld. CIT(A) has passed the appellant order ex-parte when the assessee failed to respond to various notices issued during appellate proceedings. Therefore, the End of justice will be well-served, if the appeal is restored to the file of CIT(A). Accordingly, we restore the appeal back to the file of CIT(A) with a direction to decide the same afresh after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 06.03.2026.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →