Court holds that passing appellate order before expiry of time granted for written submissions violates principles of natural justice; directs CIT(A) to provide fair hearing including video conferencing option
In a significant decision safeguarding the principles of natural justice in tax proceedings, the Delhi High Court (Division Bench) on October 28, 2026, quashed an ex-parte appellate order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] against Mehak Asri. The court restored the petitioner's appeal for a fresh hearing and directed the appellate authority to provide an opportunity of hearing, including through video conferencing if requested.
The petitioner, Mehak Asri, had challenged an order dated June 25, 2026, wherein the CIT(A) dismissed her appeal without hearing her or considering her written submissions. The petitioner's appeal was against an assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated December 31, 2019. The appeal was filed with the CIT(A) on January 24, 2020.
Crucially, the CIT(A) had issued a notice on June 23, 2026, requiring the petitioner to submit written submissions by June 30, 2026. However, the appellate order was passed prematurely on June 25, 2026 - five days before the deadline for submissions and without affording any hearing opportunity. The petitioner contended that this procedural lapse violated the settled principles of natural justice and denied her a fair chance to present her case.
The respondents, represented by the Union of India and others, opposed the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner had an alternative statutory remedy to challenge the order before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), and therefore, the High Court should not have entertained the writ petition.
After hearing both sides, the Division Bench comprising Justices Dinesh Mehta and Dr. Aditi Choudhary acknowledged that while ordinarily an assessee must exhaust the statutory remedy of appeal before the Tribunal, the facts here presented an exception. The appellate authority's procedural error was "apparent on the face of record," as the appeal was decided before the expiry of the time granted for submissions.
The court held that the CIT(A)'s action of deciding the appeal ex-parte before the date fixed for hearing or submission of written arguments was "contrary to the settled procedure and violative of principles of natural justice." Accordingly, the court quashed the impugned order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.
Importantly, the court directed that upon production of a certified copy of the High Court's order, the CIT(A) must fix a date for hearing and provide the petitioner an opportunity to be heard. If the petitioner so requests, the hearing should be conducted through video conferencing, ensuring accessibility and convenience.
This judgment reinforces the constitutional mandate that every party must be given a fair opportunity to present their case before an adverse order is passed. It underscores that procedural fairness is integral to the appellate process in tax matters, and any violation thereof can be challenged by way of writ jurisdiction in exceptional circumstances.
The decision provides important guidance for taxpayers and tax authorities alike, emphasizing that adherence to natural justice principles cannot be compromised, even in procedural matters like timelines for submissions.
Bottom Line:
Income Tax - Writ petition against ex-parte appellate order of CIT(A) entertained despite alternative remedy before Tribunal where appeal was decided before expiry of time granted for filing written submissions - Such order violates principles of natural justice and is liable to be quashed.
Statutory provision(s):
Income Tax Act, 1961 Sections 143(3), 250
Mehak Asri v. Union of India, (Delhi)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 3006558
