PREMIUM POLYFILM PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT-CC-32, NEW DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not provide a proper opportunity to the assessee to be heard, as the notices issued gave very short compliance periods. Therefore, the ex-parte orders were set aside.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed appeals before the CIT(A) which were decided ex-parte. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) did not grant sufficient time for compliance and violated principles of natural justice. The Revenue pointed out multiple notices were issued, but the assessee only sought adjournments.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice by passing ex-parte orders without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE- & SMT. RENU JAUHRI
Heard together (4 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
ORDER PER RENU JAUHRI, AM:
Four petitions dated 05.12.2025, for early hearing of the above captioned appeals have been filed by the assessee. The petitions were fixed for hearing during the course of which both the parties have consented for hearing of the appeals. As the facts and circumstances of all the four appeals are identical, these are being disposed off by a common order. 1 | P a g e , 7705, 7706, 7707/DEL/2025 PREMIUM POLYFILM PVT LTD VS. ACIT (CC)- 32 2 Before us, Ld. AR has submitted that the cited appeals have been preferred before the Tribunal against the order dated 13.11.2025, passed by the CIT(A)-30, Delhi u/s 246/250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as, “Act”)., for the A.Y. 2022-23. The Ld. CIT(A) had passed ex-parte order against the applicant without considering its adjournment applications requesting for grant of time. Instead, the Ld. CIT(A) proceeded to decide the appeals without granting proper opportunity to the assessee. Hence, Ld. AR has requested to restore the matter to Ld. CIT(A), for fresh adjudication after affording due hearing as the orders have been passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice.
On the other hand, Ld. DR has pointed out that as many as four notices were issued by Ld. CIT(A), but the assessee did not make any compliance and only sought adjournments in response to these notices.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. It is noted that the assessee had filed appeals before Ld. CIT(A) against the orders of the Ld. AO. dated 20.03.2025. The Ld. CIT(A) issued notices dated 24.10.2025, 28.10.2025, 29.10.2025 and 10.11.2025, each time giving only 1-3 days for compliance. The assessee responded to all the notices, requesting for extension of time to make compliance. We further note that all the four notices have been issued during a short span of 17 days (from 24.10.2025 to 10.11.2025), giving grossly insufficient time to the assessee for making compliance and, finally ex-parte order was passed by Ld. CIT(A) on 13.11.2025. Under these facts and circumstances, we hold that proper opportunity has not been given to the assessee by the Ld. CIT(A).
2 | P a g e , 7705, 7706, 7707/DEL/2025 PREMIUM POLYFILM PVT LTD VS. ACIT (CC)- 32 4.2 Hence, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the orders of Ld. CIT(A) with directions to adjudicate the appeals on merits after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
Accordingly, the early hearing petitions are rendered infructuous and the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 12-12-2025.
More judgments on Section 246
- Nirmala Madhukar Dherange, Pune vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle…ITA 811/PUN/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed24 Sept 2026AY 2020-21
- Sundaram Home Finance Ltd., Chennai vs ITO, Corporate Ward-6(1), ChennaiITA 1996/CHNY/2026[2014-15]Status: Disposed23 Sept 2026AY 2014-15
- Krishan Kumar Son of Shri Junglee Ram Yadav vs Income Tax OfficerCW/10216/202314 Sept 2026
- Bharat Lal Gupta, Bhadohi vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(5), BhadohiITA 39/VNS/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed31 Aug 2026AY 2017-18
- Vishnnu Kumar Sharma, Churu Rajasthan vs DCIT (International Taxation), JaipurITA 489/JPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed31 Aug 2026AY 2019-20
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- J.M.Swamy vs. Government Of INDIAKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Acc LTD. vs. Secy.Industries Deptt.Orissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Kumaran Transports (Tuticorin) Private Limited vs. The Assistant Commissioner Madras · 16 Oct 2026