Clipped from: https://taxguru.in/income-tax/hearing-merits-income-tax-appellate-orders-quashed.html
Shaheed Bhagat Singh Polyethnic Vs DCIT (ITAT Chandigarh)
The appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench concerned multiple assessment years and challenged orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi, all dated 13.01.2025. The principal grievance of the assessee was that the appellate orders were passed ex parte without granting an effective opportunity of being heard, thereby violating principles of natural justice. It was argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the orders of the DCIT (Exemptions) without examining the merits of the case, despite the assessee having a fair case. While the Department relied on the orders of the lower authorities, the Tribunal observed that even if adjournments were sought repeatedly, the Commissioner (Appeals) was still required to decide the appeals on merits based on the material available on record. Since this was not done, the Tribunal held that the ends of justice required one more opportunity. Accordingly, the impugned ex parte orders were set aside and the matters were remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh adjudication on merits after granting proper opportunity. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT CHANDIGARH
Captioned appeals for different assessment years have been preferred by the assessee against the separate orders, each dated 13.01.2025, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi.
2. Though numerous identical and similar grounds have been filed by the Assessee for each assessment year but the main grievance of the Assessee is that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed by the orders ex-parte without affording an opportunity of being heard which is against the principle of natural justice.
3. At the very outset, the ld. Counsel of the Assessee submitted before the Bench that the orders for all the three assessment years were passed ex-parte by the Ld. CIT(A) without affording an opportunity of being heard to the Assessee and without going into merits of the case. It has further been submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the facts in appropriate manner and just confirmed the orders passed by the the DCIT, Exemptions. It has further been submitted that the Assessee has a fair case on merits. A prayer has, therefore, been made by the Counsel for the Assessee to remand the matter back to the CIT(A) for all the assessment years for adjudication afresh.
4. Per contra, the ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below.
5. We have considered the submissions made by the ld. Counsel for the Assessee along with findings given by the authorities below in their respective orders. We find that though the CIT(A) has mentioned in his findings that the Assessee was time and again asking for adjournments. In any case, CIT(A) is supposed to pass order on merit on the basis of material available on record. That has not been done in this case. So, keeping in view the element of natural justice, we are of the considered view that one more opportunity should be afforded to the Assessee to present its case before the CIT(A). Therefore, we are inclined to remand this matter back to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication afresh on merit. In view of this, the impugned orders of the CIT(A) in all the assessment years are set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the CIT(A) for decision afresh. Needless to say, that the Ld. CIT(A) will give proper opportunity to the Assessee to present its case and to furnish necessary evidences and details. The Assessee is also directed to present its case before the Ld. CIT(A) as and when called for and will not contribute in unnecessary delay in the hearing of the appeal.
6. In the result, all the appeals of the Assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 08.01.2026.
aniltikotekar4sme.com 