The Chandigarh Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has clarified that an appellate authority acts in violation of the principles of natural justice if it passes an order dismissing an appeal without considering the written submissions filed by the taxpayer on the deadline date provided by the authority itself.
In the interest of natural justice and the fitness of things, a taxpayer deserves an effective opportunity of being heard. Consequently, the ITAT remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after considering the taxpayer’s submissions and providing a proper opportunity to be heard.
The Division Bench comprising Rajpal Yadav (Vice President) and Krinwant Sahay (Accountant Member) observed that the CIT(A) had issued a notice on July 7, 2025, requiring the appellant to file written submissions on or before July 14, 2025. In response thereto, the appellant complied with and filed a detailed reply along with a request for a personal hearing via video conference on July 14, 2025.
The Bench found that the CIT(A) passed the appellate order on the same day, July 14, 2025, dismissing the appeal, and his order stated that the appellant had failed to appear or submit any response. It was observed from the record that the appellant had indeed filed its submissions on the due date which fact was not disputed by the Revenue’s representative.
The Tribunal thus concluded that the CIT(A), by passing the order on the very day the submissions were filed, did so without considering the appellant-taxpayer’s written submissions. This action was deemed to be against the principles of natural justice, causing grave prejudice to the appellant.
Briefly, the appellant filed a return declaring an income of Rs. 20.80 Lakh which was selected for scrutiny, and the Assessing Officer (AO) passed an assessment order under Section 147 read with Section 144 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act. The AO made an addition of Rs. 1.12 Crores under Section 68 read with Section 115BBE, assessing the total income at Rs. 1.33 Crores.
The appellant contended that this amount was a cash deposit in their HDFC Bank account, which was already recorded in their audited books of accounts and declared in the income tax return. Aggrieved by the AO’s order, the appellant approached the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which dismissed the appeal by passing an ex-parte order.
Appearances:
Advocates Ekakshra Mandhar and Atul Mandhar, for the Appellant/ Taxpayer
Additional CIT, Dr. Ranjit Kaur, for the Respondent/ Revenue
