G K RESIDENCY PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNJAB vs. DCIT/ACIT(CEN)-1 CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

PDF

ITA 1324/CHANDI/2025Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 February 2026AY 2018-19Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos.1322 to 1327/CHD/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / A.Y. : 2013-14 & 2017-18 to 2021-22 | G.K.Residency Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 1265-C, Sector 82, JLPL, Mohali, SO-Sohana, Roopnagar, Mohali, Punjab. | Vs | The DCIT/ACIT, (Central)-I, Chandigarh. | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----|-----------------------------------4 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

Facts

The assessee filed six appeals against separate ex-parte orders of the CIT(A) for assessment years 2013-14 and 2017-18 to 2021-22, where the CIT(A) upheld the assessment orders without adjudicating on merits, citing non-submission of details. The assessee argued it was in the process of compiling extensive details for a large group of pending appeals and the ex-parte decision was premature, leading to substantial additions to income.

Held

The Tribunal deemed the ex-parte disposal by the CIT(A) inappropriate, especially considering the significant additions to the assessee's income (e.g., Rs. 1.17 Cr). It held that the tax liability was disproportionate to any alleged negligence by the assessee. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored the matters to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee to submit necessary details.

Key Issues

Appropriateness of ex-parte orders by CIT(A) when assessee is compiling details for multiple appeals; Proportionality of tax liability from ex-parte orders to alleged negligence.

Sections Cited

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DIVISION BENCH, ‘A’ CHANDIGARH

Before: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CA

For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR

Hearing: 19.02.2026Pronounced: 24.02.2026

PHYSICAL HEARING O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, VP

The present bunch of six appeals is directed at the instance of the assessee against the separate orders of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘the CIT (A)’] dated 21.08.2025 passed for assessment year 2013-14 and 2017-18 to 2021-22.

The ld. counsel for the assessee, at the outset submitted that ld. First Appellate Authority has upheld the assessment orders by passing an ex-parte order in all these assessment years. The ld.CIT (Appeals) did not adjudicate the issues by calling all the records, rather observed that AO has looked into all these aspects. The assessee has not submitted any written submissions or other material, so that he can differ with view taken by the AO.

The ld. CIT DR, on the other hand contended that ld.CIT (Appeals) has given opportunity and it was for the assessee to file written submissions and produce other explanation before the ld. First Appellate Authority. In the absence of such a material, ld.CIT (Appeals) has gone through the assessment orders and thereafter upheld the assessment orders. The ld. counsel for the assessee further contended that there was a huge group wherein 40 appeals were pending before the ld.CIT (Appeals). The assessee was in the process of compiling the details. Rather, it has filed the details in 20 appeals, but ld.CIT (Appeals) has decided six appeals ex-parte.

We have duly considered the rival contentions and gone through the record carefully. A perusal of the record for assessment year 2018-19 would indicate that income of the assessee has been determined at Rs.1,17,37,000/- as against declared loss of Rs.4,14,858/-. Thus, the punishment in the shape of the tax liability on a huge addition of Rs.1.17 Cr is far disproportionate than any negligence, if any, alleged to the assessee for not submitting complete details before the ld.CIT (Appeals). The assessee has pointed out that more than 40 appeals were pending and after receipt of notice, it was in the process of compiling the details for submission. In the above situation, disposal of appeals ex-parte is not an appropriate step at the end of the ld. First Appellate Authority, more particularly when additions to the income of the assessee is of a magnitude to Rs.1.17 Cr. Thus, we are of the view that even if assessee has not prosecuted its Income Tax litigation with diligence, then also the punishment in these six years in the shape of tax liability is disproportionate to the alleged negligence of the assessee. Accordingly, we are of the view that ends of justice would meet if we set aside the impugned orders of the ld.CIT (Appeals) in all these assessment years and restore these issues to the file of ld.CIT (Appeals) for fresh adjudication. The assessee will be at liberty to submit any details in support of its explanation before the ld. First Appellate Authority. Accordingly, all the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.