The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal’s decision in this appeal reasserts a foundational principle of administrative law: that even in cases of persistent non-cooperation, the right to a fair hearing cannot be extinguished. The Tribunal’s refusal to uphold an ex parte order - despite clear procedural defaults - marks a significant reaffirmation of natural justice in tax adjudication.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Vimarsh Prakashbhai Vasavada, was assessed for A.Y. 2020-21 after the Assessing Officer treated ₹25.12 crore received from the transfer of foreign company shares as unexplained income under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AO also denied a ₹2.19 crore deduction under Section 54F and rejected claims for foreign tax credit. The appellant had declared the transaction as long-term capital gains in his return but failed to produce sufficient documentation to substantiate cost of acquisition, genuineness of transaction, or reinvestment in residential property.
Procedural History
The case progressed through multiple stages:
- 2020-21: Assessment completed under Section 143(3) with addition of ₹25.12 crore under Section 69A
- 2022: Appeal filed before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]
- 2022 - 2025: CIT(A) issued multiple notices for hearing; appellant sought adjournments repeatedly and filed no written submissions or evidence
- 20 November 2025: CIT(A) passed ex parte order upholding the assessment, citing complete non-cooperation
- 17 February 2026: Appeal filed before ITAT, Ahmedabad, challenging the ex parte nature of the CIT(A) order
Relief Sought
The appellant sought setting aside of the ex parte order on grounds of defective service of notice via an outdated email address. He also challenged the substantive addition under Section 69A, denial of Section 54F deduction, and levy of interest under Sections 234B and 234C.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether an appellate authority may pass an ex parte order upholding a substantial tax addition when the assessee has failed to participate, even if the notice was sent to an outdated email address and the quantum of tax involved exceeds ₹25 crore.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellant’s counsel argued that the CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice by sending notices to an old email ID of a former tax consultant, which the appellant had not authorized for official communication. The counsel relied on State of U.P. v. Mohammad Noor and K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India to assert that service of notice must be effective and reasonably ascertainable. The failure to provide a meaningful opportunity to be heard rendered the order void ab initio.
For the Respondent
The Department contended that the appellant had repeatedly sought adjournments and failed to file any documents despite multiple opportunities. The CIT(A) had meticulously recorded the appellant’s non-cooperation, and the law does not require the authority to prolong proceedings indefinitely. The Department cited CIT v. B. Bhattachargee & Another to argue that the burden lies on the assessee to substantiate claims, and silence cannot be converted into a procedural defect.
The Court's Analysis
The Tribunal acknowledged the appellant’s prolonged non-compliance, noting that the appeal had been pending since 2022 with repeated non-appearance and failure to file evidence. However, it emphasized that natural justice is not contingent on the conduct of the party but is a constitutional imperative under Article 14 and Article 21. The Tribunal observed that while the appellant’s conduct was inexcusable, the magnitude of the addition - over ₹25 crore - demanded a merits-based adjudication.
"The matter involves substantial issues relating to the nature of capital gains, applicability of Section 69A of the Act, allowability of deduction under Section 54F of the Act and claim of foreign tax credit, which require proper verification of facts and examination of documentary evidence."
The Tribunal distinguished between procedural default and substantive injustice. It held that an ex parte order on such a large addition, where the assessee had previously participated in the assessment stage and had not been formally notified of a change in communication channel, could not stand. The CIT(A) had not established that the email address used was the only or last known address of the appellant, nor had it attempted alternative modes of service.
The Tribunal further noted that Section 144B mandates a structured process for faceless assessments, and the appellate authority must ensure compliance with procedural safeguards even when the appellant is dilatory. The Tribunal declined to penalize the appellant by affirming an order that was procedurally flawed, even if substantively supported.
The Verdict
The appellant prevailed on procedural grounds. The ITAT set aside the ex parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the appeal for de-novo hearing. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to afford the appellant a fresh opportunity to present evidence and arguments, while warning that further non-cooperation would result in dismissal on merits.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Opportunity to Be Heard Is Non-Negotiable
- Practitioners must argue that natural justice overrides procedural defaults when the quantum of tax is substantial
- Even if the assessee has been dilatory, the appellate authority must record attempts at alternative service before proceeding ex parte
- Courts and tribunals cannot treat silence as waiver of fundamental rights without clear, documented notice
Substantial Additions Demand Merits-Based Adjudication
- Additions exceeding ₹10 crore trigger heightened scrutiny under judicial precedent
- Tribunals are increasingly reluctant to uphold ex parte orders on large additions without examining documentary evidence
- The burden of proof remains on the Revenue, but the burden of participation lies on the assessee - both must be balanced
Procedural Compliance Is Mandatory in Faceless Assessments
-
Notices sent via email must be to addresses registered with the department or last known to the taxpayer
-
Failure to verify updated contact details constitutes procedural irregularity
-
Practitioners should immediately file affidavits of non-receipt if notices are sent to outdated addresses
-
Always verify the email ID used in Form 35 against the one used for notices
-
File a written application for restoration if an ex parte order is passed without proof of effective service
-
In cases involving additions over ₹10 crore, insist on de-novo hearing even if the assessee has been non-cooperative
