PREMIUM COMPOSTOS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT-CC-32, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7710/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 December 2025AY 2022-23Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)3 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to be heard by the CIT(A). The ex-parte order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) against the order of the AO. The CIT(A) issued multiple notices with very short compliance periods, and the assessee sought adjournments. Subsequently, an ex-parte order was passed.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) granted proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee before passing an ex-parte order?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 246,Section 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

For Appellant: Shri Ruches Sinha, Adv, Shri Vikram Sharma, SR DR
For Respondent: Shri Vikram Sharma, SR DR
Hearing: 12.12.2025Pronounced: 12.12.2025
1.

Petition for early hearing dated 05.12.2025, has been filed by the assessee in respect of the above captioned appeal. The petition was fixed for hearing.

2.

During the course of hearing, both the parties have consented for hearing of the appeal on merits.

2.2 Before us, Ld. AR has submitted that the cited appeal has 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 an 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 appeal 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 order has been passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice.

3.

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 adjournment each time.

4.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. It is noted that the assessee had filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A) against the order 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 sufficient 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).

4.1 Hence, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) with directions to adjudicate the appeal on merits after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

5.

Accordingly, the early hearing petition is rendered infructuous and the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 246

All 130 judgments and leading authorities on Section 246 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →