PANCHAGRAM SAMABAY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITY LTD.,DAKSHIN DINAJPUR vs. I.T.O., WARD - 3(4), BALURGHAT

ITA 3019/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 March 2026AY 2017-20183 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the NFAC had passed the appellate order ex-parte because the assessee failed to respond to various notices during the appellate proceedings. Similarly, the AO had passed an ex-parte assessment order when the assessee did not respond to notices during the assessment proceedings. The Tribunal found that the ends of justice would be well-served by restoring the appeal to the file of the AO. Accordingly, the Tribunal restored the appeal back to the file of the AO with a direction to decide the same afresh after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Panchagram Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd, filed an appeal against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 14.11.2025, for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The assessee's representative submitted that both the NFAC's appellate order and the Assessing Officer's (AO) assessment order were passed ex-parte, as the assessee failed to respond to various notices issued by these authorities. The assessee requested that the appeal be restored to the file of the NFAC (referred to as CIT(A) in the judgment) for a fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The Revenue's representative did not oppose this submission and conceded that the order was passed without hearing the assessee.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal should restore the appeal to the file of the NFAC for fresh adjudication after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing, given that both the NFAC's order and the AO's order were passed ex-parte due to the assessee's failure to respond to notices. Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that in the interest of justice and fair play, the appeal should be restored to the file of the CIT(A) for re-adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing, as the previous orders were passed ex-parte. Revenue's contention: The Revenue's representative fairly conceded that the order was passed by the CIT(A) without hearing the assessee and did not oppose the assessee's request for restoration.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Agrawal, AR

For Respondent: Shri Sandip Sarkar, DR

Hearing: 24.02.2026Pronounced: 06.03.2026

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 14.11.2025 for the AY 2017-18.

At the outset, the Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Appellate Order as well as AO’s order were passed by the authorities ex-parte without hearing the assessee when the assessee failed to respond to various notices issued by these authorities. 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. Similarly, the AO passed ex-parte assessment when the assessee did not respond to the notices issued during assessment proceedings. Therefore, the End of justice will be well-served, if the appeal is restored to the file of AO. Accordingly, we restore the appeal back to the file of AO 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 →