Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed appeals before the CIT(A) against the orders of the AO. The CIT(A) issued multiple notices for compliance with very short timelines, leading to ex-parte orders without granting proper opportunity to the assessee.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Therefore, the orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) afforded a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee before passing ex-parte orders.
Sections Cited
246, 250
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
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.