What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex parte order dismissing the appeal due to delay. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for a fresh decision.

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed as time-barred by 88 days. The assessee contended that there was a reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay and requested the matter be restored to the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was sufficiently explained and whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex parte order without condoning the delay.

Jayshree Sharma vs ITO | s.250 | ITAT Delhi 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “E”, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI VIMAL KUMAR & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI

For Respondent: Shri Tarun Sharda, Sr. DR

Hearing: 14.09.2026Pronounced: 14.09.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “E”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 6080/Del/2026, A.Y. 2021-22 Jayshree Sharma Vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), 2326, 3rd Floor, Gurgaon, Gali Hinga Beg, Haryana Tilak Bazar, Delhi New Delhi �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: BBKPS5207B Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Sh. Mukesh jain, CA, Sh. Samyak jain, Adv. Respondent by : Shri Tarun Sharda, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 14.09.2026 Date of Pronouncement 14.09.2026

O R D E R PER VIMAL KUMAR, JM: The appeal filed by the appellant/ Assessee is against order dated 31.03.2026 of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/ NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “the CIT(A)”] under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) arising out of assessment order dated 23.12.2022 of the ld. Assessing Officer/Assessment Unit (hereinafter referred to as ‘the AO’) u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act for A.Y. 2021-22.

P a g e | 2 ITA No. 6080/Del/2026 Jayshree Sharma

Ld. Authorized Representative for appellant/assessee submitted that Ld. CIT(A) erred in passing ex parte order and not condoning delay of 88 days in filing appeal due to reasonable and sufficient cause. The matter may be restored to the file of ld. CIT(A).

Ld. Departmental Representative relied on impugned order.

From examination of record in light of aforesaid rival contention, it is crystal clear that Ld. CIT(A) vide ex parte order dated 31.03.2026 dismissed the appeal being time barred by 88 days.

In view of above material facts and in interest of justice, the impugned order dated 31.03.2026 of ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for afresh decision in accordance with law after affording fair opportunity of hearing to the appellant/assessee.

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 14.09. 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (SANJAY AWASHI) (VIMAL KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 17.09.2026 Binita, Sr. PS

P a g e | 3 ITA No. 6080/Del/2026 Jayshree Sharma

JAYSHREE SHARMA,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 2(2), GURGAON

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments