SURESH KUMAR MEHTA,NEW DELHI vs. IINCOME TAX OFFICER, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2479/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 September 2026AY 2013-143 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) order was passed ex-parte without sufficient opportunity for the assessee to be heard. The principles of natural justice were not followed as there was no proof of proper service of notices.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed ex-parte by the CIT(A) for non-compliance with notices. The assessee contended that they were not given a sufficient opportunity to be heard, violating the principles of natural justice.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) order passed ex-parte without sufficient opportunity of hearing and proper service of notices violates the principles of natural justice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. Raj Kumar Chauhan&

Hearing: 01.09.2026Pronounced: 09.09.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Raj Kumar Chauhan, Judicial Member & Sh. Amitabh Shukla, Accountant Member ITA No. 2479/Del/2026 : Asstt. Year: 2013-14 Suresh Kumar Mehta, Vs Income Tax Officer, B-4/224, Safdarjang Enclave, South Ward-61(3), West Delhi, New Delhi-110029 New Delhi-110002 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAPPM4152J Assessee by: Sh. R. R. Maurya, Adv. Revenue by: Sh. Raghubir Singh, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 01.09.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 09.09.2026 ORDER Per Raj Kumar Chauhan, Judicial Member: The appeal of the assessee is directed against the order dated 28.02.2026 of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) wherein appeal has been dismissed ex-parte on the ground that despite several opportunities, the assessee has failed to comply with the notices issued from time to time, against assessment order dated 31.03.2016.

2.

At the very outset, the ld. AR submitted that the impugned order has been passed without giving sufficient opportunity to the assessee/appellant by the ld. CIT(A). It is further stated that the dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution has

2 ITA No. 2479/Del/2026 Suresh Kumar Mehta violated the principle of section 250(6) of the Act. Hence, it is prayed that matter be restored to the file of ld. CIT(A) for deciding afresh on merit after granting adequate opportunity of being heard.

3.

The ld. DR, on the other hand, while supporting the judgment of lower authorities has left it to the discretion of the Tribunal to consider the submissions for restoring the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A).

4.

We have considered the rival submissions and examined the material on record. Admittedly, the appeal by ld. CIT(A) has not been adjudicated on merit. On perusal of the impugned order, we have noticed that there is nothing brought on record to show that the notices sent to the assessee/appellant were duly served upon him or received by him. Section 250(2)(a) lays down as under:

“250(2) The following shall have the right to be heard at the hearing of the appeal- (a) the appellant, either in person or by an authorized representative;” 5. Thus, the hearing mandated by Section 250(2)(a) of the Act is not a mere formality but a mandatory statutory

3 ITA No. 2479/Del/2026 Suresh Kumar Mehta requirement for following the principle of natural justice by the quasi-judicial authority.

6.

In view of the above facts and circumstances, it is evident that the impugned order has been passed ex-parte without giving sufficient opportunity of hearing and principle of natural justice has not been followed. The end of justice shall be met in case the matter is restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for deciding the issue afresh by affording an effective opportunity of hearing and considering the submissions to be made by the appellant/assessee. The assessee/appellant is also directed to make the necessary submissions/ detailed material before the ld. CIT(A) within the period of 60 days of this order.

7.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 09/09/2026. Sd/- Sd/- (Amitabh Shukla) (Raj Kumar Chauhan) Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 09/09/2026 *Subodh Kumar, Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →