The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench, has reaffirmed that the right to a fair hearing is non-negotiable in tax appellate proceedings. In a significant ruling, the Tribunal set aside an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) without affording the assessee any opportunity to be heard, emphasizing that procedural fairness cannot be sacrificed for technical delays.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Khushbu Singh, challenged an assessment order dated 30.10.2019 passed under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which made certain additions to her income for the assessment year 2017-18. She filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] against this order. However, the CIT(A) dismissed her appeal on 15.04.2024 solely on the ground of delay, without addressing the merits of her grounds of appeal or providing her any opportunity to present her case.
Key Facts
- Assessment order passed under Section 144 on 30.10.2019
- Appeal filed before CIT(A) within the prescribed time limit
- CIT(A) order dated 15.04.2024 dismissed the appeal on delay without hearing the assessee
- No record of notice being served to the assessee or her authorized representative
- No discussion of substantive grounds raised in the appeal
- No application for condonation of delay was considered on merits by the CIT(A)
Procedural History
- 30.10.2019: Assessment order passed under Section 144 by the Assessing Officer
- [Date not specified]: Appeal filed before CIT(A) (timely, as per Tribunal’s observation)
- 15.04.2024: CIT(A) dismissed appeal ex parte on delay, without hearing or adjudication on merits
- 03.06.2026: Hearing before ITAT Patna Bench
- 10.06.2026: ITAT pronounces order
The Parties' Positions
Appellant (Khushbu Singh): Contended that the CIT(A) violated the principles of natural justice by passing an ex parte order without granting any opportunity to be heard. The appellant argued that the dismissal on delay alone, without examining the substantive grounds, rendered the order illegal and unsustainable.
Respondent (ITO): Relied on the CIT(A)’s order and argued that the appeal was filed beyond the prescribed period, and therefore, dismissal on procedural grounds was justified.
Relief Sought
The appellant sought: (1) setting aside of the CIT(A)’s order dated 15.04.2024; (2) remand of the appeal for fresh adjudication on merits; and (3) direction to the CIT(A) to provide a fair opportunity of hearing.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether an appellate authority under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act can dismiss an appeal solely on the ground of delay without affording the assessee an opportunity to be heard, and without adjudicating the substantive grounds raised.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellant’s authorized representatives argued that the CIT(A)’s order was a clear violation of the principles of natural justice, particularly the rule of audi alteram partem. They cited multiple precedents, including State of U.P. v. Mohammad Noor and K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, to establish that the right to a fair hearing is a fundamental component of statutory appellate proceedings. They emphasized that the CIT(A) had not even acknowledged the grounds of appeal, let alone addressed them, rendering the order a nullity.
For the Respondent
The Department’s representative relied on the CIT(A)’s order and contended that the delay in filing the appeal was inordinate and unexplained, and therefore, dismissal on procedural grounds was warranted. No independent legal argument was advanced to justify the absence of hearing.
The Court's Analysis
The Tribunal observed that while delay in filing an appeal may be a ground for dismissal, it cannot override the foundational requirement of natural justice. The CIT(A) had not merely failed to condone the delay - it had entirely bypassed the substantive adjudication of the appeal.
"The appellate authority cannot act as a mere registry to reject appeals on technical grounds without examining the merits, especially when the assessee has not been given any opportunity to explain the delay or present her case."
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)’s order was silent on all grounds of appeal, indicating a complete failure to perform its statutory duty under Section 250. The Tribunal further held that the doctrine of audi alteram partem is not a mere formality but a substantive legal requirement in quasi-judicial proceedings, including tax appeals.
The Tribunal distinguished Collector, Land & Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji - cited by the appellant - not as a case on delay condonation alone, but as a precedent affirming that substantial justice must prevail over procedural technicalities. The Tribunal concluded that the CIT(A)’s failure to hear the assessee rendered the order void ab initio.
The Verdict
The appeal was partly allowed. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)’s order dated 15.04.2024 and remanded the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The CIT(A) was directed to provide the assessee a full opportunity of hearing and to decide the appeal afresh in accordance with law. The Tribunal also imposed a cost of Rs. 2,000/- to be deposited by the assessee into the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund (PMNRF) for the delay in filing the appeal.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Right to Hearing Is Non-Negotiable
- Practitioners must now insist on recording of non-appearance or waiver of hearing before any ex parte order is passed
- Any CIT(A) order dismissing an appeal without addressing grounds or granting hearing is liable to be set aside
- Failure to hear is a jurisdictional error, not a mere procedural lapse
Delay Must Be Examined, Not Ignored
- Delay alone cannot be a substitute for adjudication on merits
- Even if delay is inordinate, the appellate authority must first consider whether there is sufficient cause, and only then decide whether to hear the case
- The burden shifts to the authority to show that the assessee was given notice and opportunity
Statutory Duty Under Section 250 Is Mandatory
- CIT(A) is not a reviewing body but a statutory appellate authority with a duty to adjudicate
- The Tribunal will not uphold orders that bypass substantive issues under the guise of procedural compliance
- Practitioners should cite this judgment to challenge any ex parte CIT(A) order passed without hearing
