Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee failed to appear before the CIT(Appeals) despite sufficient opportunities, leading to ex-parte orders confirming the Assessing Officer's additions. The CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeals due to non-appearance without discussing the merits.
Held
The Tribunal, considering the principle of natural justice, set aside the orders of the CIT(Appeals). The matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) to provide one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(Appeals) was justified in passing ex-parte orders without considering the merits of the case, and whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to be heard.
Sections Cited
Section 40(A)(2)(a), Section 37(1), Section 2(22)(e)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA-GAUHATI ‘e-COURT’, DB, KOLKATA
Before: Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Vice-(KZ) & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu
Per Duvvuru RL Reddy, Vice-President (KZ):- The present appeals bearing 321, 322, 323 & 324/GTY/2025 are directed at the instance of assessee against the orders of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Central NER, Guwahati, dated 13th August, 2025, 26th August, 2025, 14th August, 2025, 13th August, 2025, and 14th August, 2025 passed for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2016-17 & 2017-18 respectively.
None appeared on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing. Therefore, we have decided to dispose of the appeals after hearing the ld. Departmental Representative and perusing the material available on record.
At the time of hearing, ld. Departmental Representative stated that the ld. CIT(Appeals) has passed the orders ex-parte confirming the orders of ld. Assessing Officer as the assessee failed to produce satisfactory documentary evidences in support of its claim inspite of sufficient opportunities given. He, therefore, pleaded before the Bench to confirm the orders of ld. CIT(Appeals).
We have perused the material available on record. A perusal of the impugned orders clearly shows that as there was no response to the notices to substantiate the claim with documentary evidences and submissions, ld. CIT(Appeals) confirmed the additions made by the ld. Assessing Officer. It is also evident that the ld. CIT(Appeals) has not discussed the issues on (A.Ys. 2011-12 to 2013-14) & (A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2017-18) Brahm (Alloys) Limited merits and dismissed the appeals due to non-appearance. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to set aside the orders passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) and in order to meet the principle of natural justice, remit the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(Appeals) with a direction to provide one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. At the same breath, we also hereby caution the assessee to promptly co-operate with the proceedings before the ld. CIT(Appeals) failing which the ld. CIT(Appeals) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law and merits based on the materials available on the record. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee in all the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 22/01/2026.