The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ranchi, has reaffirmed that even in cases of non-appearance, the principles of natural justice cannot be bypassed. An ex-parte dismissal without affording the assessee a meaningful opportunity to substantiate its claims violates fundamental procedural fairness, regardless of procedural defaults.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appeals before the Tribunal arise from orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 17.03.2025, for Assessment Years 2013-14 and 2014-15. The Assessing Officer had issued notices and sought documents from K.S.S. Infrastructure Private Limited, the assessee, but the company did not appear before the Assessing Officer, the CIT(A), or the Tribunal. Consequently, both lower authorities dismissed the assessee’s appeals ex-parte on grounds of non-cooperation and failure to produce evidence.
Key Facts
The assessee, K.S.S. Infrastructure Private Limited, PAN AAECK2605E, is a company based in Ranchi, Jharkhand
Notices were issued by the Assessing Officer for both A.Y. 2013-14 and 2014-15 seeking clarification and documentation regarding income and expenditures
The assessee did not file any reply, appear in person, or submit any documents before the Assessing Officer
The CIT(A) dismissed the appeals ex-parte on 17.03.2025, citing non-appearance and failure to discharge the burden of proof
No representation was made by the assessee before the Tribunal on the date of hearing
Procedural History
2013-14 & 2014-15: Assessment proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer
Before 17.03.2025: Notices issued, replies not filed, no appearance by assessee
17.03.2025: CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders dismissing appeals for both assessment years
18.03.2025: Appeals filed before ITAT Ranchi (ITA No. 181/Ran/2025 and ITA No. 182/Ran/2025)
23.04.2026: Hearing date before ITAT Ranchi; no representative appeared for the assessee
The Parties' Positions
For the Revenue
The Senior Deputy Representative (Sr.DR), Shri Kailash V. Gautam, argued that the assessee had wilfully avoided participation at every stage - from the Assessing Officer to the CIT(A) and now the Tribunal. He contended that the ex-parte dismissal was justified under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and that the assessee had forfeited its right to contest by its own inaction.
Relief Sought
The assessee, through its appeals, sought relief from the ex-parte orders of the CIT(A), requesting that the assessments be reopened and reconsidered on merits, with opportunity to produce documents and explain its position.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether an appellate authority may uphold an ex-parte dismissal by the lower authority when the assessee has not been afforded any opportunity to present its case, even if the default is attributable to the assessee’s non-appearance.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
No representative appeared for the assessee. No arguments were presented on its behalf.
For the Respondent/State
The Revenue contended that the assessee’s persistent non-cooperation justified the ex-parte dismissal. It relied on the principle that procedural lapses by the assessee cannot be condoned without consequence, and that the lower authorities acted within their powers under Section 143(3) and Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Court's Analysis
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee’s failure to appear and submit documents. However, it emphasized that procedural non-compliance by the assessee does not absolve the revenue authorities of their duty to ensure fairness. The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had not recorded any attempt to ascertain whether the assessee had received notices or had a reasonable cause for non-appearance.
"Considering the principles of natural justice, in our considered view, one last chance should be provided to the assessee to explain its case before the Assessing Officer."
The Tribunal held that the right to be heard is a foundational element of natural justice under Article 14 of the Constitution and is embedded in the procedural framework of the Income Tax Act. Even in cases of apparent neglect, the law requires that an opportunity be granted before final adverse orders are passed. The Tribunal distinguished this from cases of deliberate defiance, noting that the assessee’s silence may stem from administrative oversight, financial distress, or lack of legal awareness - none of which justify denial of hearing.
The Tribunal further noted that the Assessing Officer had not recorded any reasons for rejecting the assessee’s potential submissions, nor had the CIT(A) examined whether the documents sought were genuinely unavailable. The ex-parte dismissal, therefore, was procedurally defective.
The Verdict
The appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) dated 17.03.2025 for both Assessment Years 2013-14 and 2014-15. The matters were restored to the file of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to cooperate fully and produce all documents and evidence as required by the Assessing Officer within a reasonable time. The Assessing Officer was directed to provide a fair opportunity of hearing before passing any fresh order.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Opportunity to Be Heard Is Non-Negotiable
Practitioners must argue that even if an assessee fails to appear, the tax authority must record efforts to establish notice and intent before passing ex-parte orders
Failure to provide a final opportunity to explain constitutes a jurisdictional error, not merely a procedural lapse
The burden is on the revenue to prove that the assessee was aware of proceedings and deliberately ignored them - mere non-appearance is insufficient
Ex-Parte Orders Are Not Final Without Due Process
ITAT rulings reinforce that ex-parte assessments are subject to higher scrutiny
Tax officers must document attempts to contact the assessee, including registered post, email, or personal service
Appeals against ex-parte orders should be framed on grounds of violation of natural justice, not merely on merits
Always file a representation before the Assessing Officer if you suspect an ex-parte order is pending
If notices are received but not responded to, immediately file a request for hearing with reasons for delay
In appeals, cite State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India to reinforce the constitutional right to hearing
