The Delhi High Court has quashed an ex parte income tax appellate order passed five days before the deadline granted to the taxpayer for filing written submissions, holding that the premature disposal violated the principles of natural justice.

A Division Bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta and Justice Aditi Choudhary restored the appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for fresh adjudication. The bench directed that a hearing through video conferencing be provided if requested by the taxpayer.

Buy Now: Direct tax (Income Tax) Judgments E-Magazine October 2026

The proceedings arose from an assessment order dated December 31, 2019, passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. The taxpayer challenged that assessment by filing an appeal on January 24, 2020.

The petitioner’s counsel informed the High Court that several hearing notices had been received during the appellate proceedings. The last notice, dated June 23, 2026, required written submissions to be furnished on or before June 30, 2026.

However, the CIT(A) rejected the appeal ex parte on June 25, 2026, before the period allowed for submitting the taxpayer’s response had expired.

The petitioner contended that deciding the appeal before the stipulated deadline deprived the taxpayer of an effective opportunity to present the case.

Counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned order was contrary to settled procedure and the principles of natural justice because the appellate authority had decided the matter before the date fixed for filing submissions.

It was further submitted that, if a proper opportunity had been provided, the taxpayer could have addressed the merits and produced an Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) order allowing the appeal of a similarly situated assessee in comparable circumstances.

The High Court recorded this argument but did not decide the underlying assessment dispute or determine whether that Tribunal order entitled the petitioner to substantive relief.

The respondents opposed the writ petition, arguing that the taxpayer had bypassed the statutory remedy of appeal before the ITAT.

The department contended that the proper course was to challenge the CIT(A)’s June 25 order before the Tribunal instead of directly invoking the High Court’s writ jurisdiction.

The Bench acknowledged that this objection would ordinarily be sustainable. It observed that an assessee challenging an order of the CIT(A) should normally first avail the appellate remedy before the Tribunal.

Nevertheless, the Court found that the particular facts warranted intervention.

The High Court noted that the CIT(A) had committed a procedural error apparent on the face of the record. The petitioner was seeking an opportunity to be heard before the appellate authority, which had disposed of the appeal without waiting for its own prescribed deadline.

On examining the notice dated June 23, 2026, the Bench found that the taxpayer had expressly been allowed until June 30 to file written submissions. The appellate authority nevertheless passed its order on June 25.

The Court held that disposing of the appeal before the stipulated date violated the principles of natural justice.

The decision to entertain the writ petition was based on this clear procedural defect. The Court did not lay down a general exemption from pursuing the statutory appellate remedy against CIT(A) orders.

The High Court quashed and set aside the CIT(A)’s order dated June 25, 2026, and restored the appeal to its docket for a fresh decision in accordance with law.

It directed that, upon a certified copy of the High Court’s judgment being placed before the CIT(A), the authority must fix a hearing date. If requested by the petitioner, a hearing through video conferencing must be provided.

Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy

To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.

Read More: Filing Supreme Court Petition Alone Can’t Override Rs. 20 Lakh GST Appeal Limit: GSTAT