Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for AY 2015-16 challenged an ex-parte penalty order passed under Section 144 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was upheld by the NFAC/CIT(A) also ex-parte. The assessee failed to appear before both lower authorities and the tribunal.
Held
The tribunal noted that both lower authorities passed ex-parte orders without discussing the case on merits, violating principles of natural justice. It remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, imposing a cost of Rs. 5,000 on the assessee for non-compliance.
Key Issues
The key legal issue was whether the ex-parte orders passed by the lower authorities, without considering the merits of the case, violated the principles of natural justice, and if the matter should be remitted for fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
Section 144, Section 143(3), Section 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC”
Before: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI
सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing : 06/02/2026 घोषणा क� तार�ख/Date of Pronouncement : 06/02/2026 आदेश/ORDER Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M.:
Captioned appeal filed by assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year 2015- 16, is directed against the order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi/Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), dated 26.12.2025, which in turn arises out of a penalty order passed by Assessing Officer u/s. 144 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act on 27.12.2017.
None appeared on the date of hearing before the Bench, despite of issuance of notice of hearing to the assessee, on the address provided in Form No. 36.
Paramount Global 3. On the other hand, the ld. DR for the Revenue submitted that assessee was negligent during the assessment proceedings. The assessee did not submitted required details and documents, therefore, if the Bench wants to remit the matter back to the file of the assessing officer then a cost of Rs. 5,000/- may be imposed on the assessee as the assessee has wasted time and resources of the lower authorities.
I have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the fact of the case including the findings of the ld CIT(A) and other materials brought on record. I note that in the assessee’s case under consideration, the assessment was carried out u/s 144 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act and the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A), is an ex parte order and non-speaking order, therefore, I do not wish to make any comments on the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee. Both the lower authorities passed the ex- parte order, as assessee never appeared before the lower authorities and did not file details and documents.
Considering the above facts, I note that assessee has not given sufficient opportunity of being heard and could not plead his case successfully before the ld. CIT(A). I note that the ld. CIT(A) did not discuss the assessee’s case on merits based on the material available before him hence it is a violation of principle of natural justice. I note that it is settled law that principles of natural justice and fair play require that the affected party is granted sufficient opportunity of being heard to contest his case. However, on account of non-compliance attitude of the assessee, I impose a cost of Rs. 5,000/- on the assessee which should be deposited in the Prime Minister National Relief Fund, within three months from the date of receipt of this order. Therefore, without delving much deeper into the merits of the case, in the interest of justice, I restore the matter back to the file of assessing officer for de novo adjudication and pass a speaking order after affording Page 2 of 3 sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who in turn, is also directed to contest his stand forthwith. Therefore, I deem it fit and proper to set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the Ld. assessing officer to adjudicate the issue afresh on merits. For the reasons given above, I am of the view that the order of the CIT(A) on this issue requires to be set aside and the issue needs to be looked into afresh by the assessing officer in the light of the observations as set out above. I hold and direct accordingly. The assessing officer will afford opportunity of being heard to the Assessee before deciding the issue. The Assessee will also be at liberty to let in further evidence to substantiate its case. For statistical purpose, the appeal of the revenue is treated as allowed.
For statistical purposes, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 06/02/2026.