When the CIT(Appeals) passes an ex-parte order due to non-compliance by the assessee, the ITAT should remand the matter for de novo adjudication to ensure compliance with natural justice and the statutory scheme.

PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM

The present appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi dated 22.01.2026 for the assessment year 2022-23 as per the grounds of appeal on record.

2. At the very outset, it is noted that the present appeal is time barred by 9 days. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that due to some technical glitch, they were not able to fulfil the requirement of law of limitation.

3. The Ld. Sr. DR did not raise any objection so seriously considering the smallness of the number of days of delay.

4. Having heard the submissions of the parties herein, I find that there is no deliberate or malafide conduct on the part of the assessee for such delay of 9 days, if any. Further from the perspective of judicious approach and taking guidance from the following judicial pronouncements viz. (i) Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors, reported in 167 ITR 471 (SC); (ii) Vidya Shankar Jaiswal Vs. ITO, Ward-2, Ambikapur , Civil Appeal Nos……………../2025 [Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 26310-26311/2024, dated 31.01.2025; (iii) Jagdish Prasad Singhania Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Raipur (C.G.), TAX Case No.17/2025, dated 24.02.2025 and (iv) Inder Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh , Civil Appeal No…………/2025, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.6145 of 2024, dated 21st March, 2025, the delay of 9 day involved in the present appeal is condoned.

5. So far as merits of the matter are concerned, it is noted that an ex- parte order has been passed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC vide para 7 of the impugned order due to non-compliance by the assessee. There is no doubt of the fact that reasonable opportunities were provided to the assessee. However, the assessee did not comply with the hearing notices which had resulted in passing of ex-parte order. For the sake of clarity, the para 7 of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC order are extracted as follows:

“7. During the appellate proceedings, notices of hearing were issued on various dates through the ITBA portal. However, despite due service of notices and grant of sufficient opportunities, there was no appearance on behalf of the appellant and no written submissions or evidence were filed. The appeal is therefore adjudicated on the basis of material available on record. On perusal of the assessment order, it is seen that the Ld. AO has reopened the case on the basis of tangible material arising from search proceedings and has passed a reasoned order after discussing the evidentially value of seized digital material and related statements. The addition of Rs.2,34,800/- has thus been made on the basis of material available on record.”

6. The Ld. Sr. DR submitted that in these parameters of an ex-parte order being passed, the bench had provided one final opportunity to the assessee to explain the matter on merits before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC providing benefit of doubt to the assessee for such non-compliance and in the interest of natural justice, therefore, the matter should be remanded back to the file of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC for denovo adjudication as per law in terms with settled principles on the present facts of ex-parte order by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC as decided by ITAT, “Division Bench”, Raipur in the cases of Brajesh Singh Bhadoria Vs. Dy./ACIT , Central Circle-2, Naya Raipur, IT(SS)A Nos. 1 to 6, 8 & 9/RPR/2025, dated 20.03.2025.

7. At this stage, I herein observe that the ITAT, “Division Bench”, Raipur in the cases of Collector Mining, Kondagaon Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), ITA Nos. 771, 772, 773, 774, 775, 776 & 777/RPR/2025, dated 12.03.2026 had dealt with similar issue on the same parameters of ex-parte order passed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC and remanded the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC following the order passed in cases of Brajesh Singh Bhadoria (supra), observing as follows:

“6. We have heard the submissions of the parties herein and analyzed the