Fair hearing and provident fund delay issues led to remand for fresh appellate consideration.

An ex parte appellate order was found unsustainable because the assessee had not been given a fair and adequate opportunity of hearing, including proper consideration of an adjournment request and supporting explanation. The matter was set aside and restored for fresh adjudication after reasonable hearing. On disallowance of employees' provident fund contribution, the assessee's explanation of a one-day delay due to EPFO portal non-functioning, together with the EPFO relaxation communication, had not been examined by the first appellate authority, which had relied only on a Supreme Court ruling cited before it. That issue was therefore remitted for fresh consideration rather than finally decided.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the ex parte appellate order was sustainable when adequate opportunity of hearing was not afforded. (ii) Whether the disallowance of employees' contribution to provident fund required interference in view of the assessee's explanation regarding one-day delay and the EPFO's relaxation.

Issue (i): Whether the ex parte appellate order was sustainable when adequate opportunity of hearing was not afforded.

Analysis: The appellate authority had proceeded ex parte after issuing only two notices within a short span, and the assessee's request for adjournment and supporting explanation was not properly considered. The procedural lapse affected fair hearing and warranted interference.

Conclusion: The ex parte order was not sustained.

Issue (ii): Whether the disallowance of employees' contribution to provident fund required interference in view of the assessee's explanation regarding one-day delay and the EPFO's relaxation.

Analysis: The assessee's case was that the delay occurred because the EPFO portal was non-functional on the due date and that the EPFO had issued a communication indicating that such delay should not be treated as employer default. These specific grounds were not examined by the first appellate authority, which had decided the matter only by relying on the Supreme Court ruling cited before it.

Conclusion: The disallowance was not finally adjudicated and the matter required fresh consideration.

Final Conclusion: The appellate order was set aside and the matter was restored for fresh decision after granting reasonable opportunity of hearing, so the assessee obtained only partial relief at this stage.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a tax appeal is decided ex parte without proper consideration of specific grounds and supporting material, and the factual controversy remains unexamined, the appropriate course is to set aside the order and remand the matter for fresh adjudication after affording a fair hearing.

---