ITAT Chandigarh Sets Aside Ex-Parte Order Passed in Haste; Remands Matter for Fresh Adjudication

March 13, 2026 : he Chandigarh Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has ruled that passing an appellate order without considering written submissions filed within the prescribed timeframe constitutes a violation of the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal emphasized that when a taxpayer complies with a deadline, the appeal cannot be dismissed on the grounds of non-responsiveness.

Case Background

The Division Bench, comprising Shri Rajpal Yadav (Vice President) and Shri Krinwant Sahay (Accountant Member), was presiding over an appeal filed by Platinum Sales against an order dated July 14, 2025, issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi.

The dispute originated from the Assessment Year 2013-14. The assessee had originally filed a return declaring an income of ₹20,80,370/-. However, following a scrutiny selection, the Assessing Officer (AO) passed an order under Sections 147, 144, and 144B of the Income Tax Act. The AO made a significant addition of ₹1,12,65,000/- under Section 68 read with Section 115BBE, resulting in a total assessed income of ₹1,33,45,370/-.

Violation of Natural Justice

The assessee challenged the assessment before the CIT(A), who subsequently dismissed the appeal via an ex-parte order.

During the ITAT proceedings, the counsel for Platinum Sales argued that the CIT(A) had issued a notice on July 7, 2025, requiring submissions by July 14, 2025. While the assessee complied and filed a detailed reply along with a request for a video conference hearing on that exact date, the CIT(A) allegedly passed the dismissal order on the very same day without acknowledging the material.

The Tribunal observed:

“The Ld. CIT(A) without considering the written submissions filed by the Assessee, passed the order on 14.7.2025 itself which is against the principles of natural justice.”

Tribunal’s Ruling

The ITAT noted that the Revenue did not controvert the fact that submissions were filed on time. The Bench found that the CIT(A) had erroneously recorded a failure to appear despite the assessee’s timely written response.

Concluding that the “haste” in passing the order caused grave prejudice, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The CIT(A) has been directed to provide a proper opportunity for the assessee to present their case and furnish necessary evidence.

The appeal was officially allowed for statistical purposes.

Case Reference : Platinum Sales v. ITO, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh Case No.: ITA No. 1156/CHD/2025 (AY: 2013-14) Coram: Shri Rajpal Yadav (VP) and Shri Krinwant Sahay (AM) Date of Pronouncement: 13.03.2026