SILVER OAK PROJECTS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2593/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 August 2026AY 2015-20164 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the ex-parte dismissal was a material illegality as there was no proof of proper service of notices. The principle of natural justice requires an adequate opportunity of hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals were dismissed ex-parte by the CIT(A) for non-compliance with notices. The assessee contended that they were not afforded an adequate opportunity of being heard, violating principles of natural justice.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) properly afforded an adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee before dismissing the appeal ex-parte.

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. Ramit Kochar & Sh. Raj Kumar Chauhan

Hearing: 20.07.2026Pronounced: 07.08.2026

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No. 2592/Del/2026
ITA No. 2593/Del/2026

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Ramit Kochar, Accountant Member & Sh. Raj Kumar Chauhan, Judicial Member ITA No. 2592/Del/2026 : Asstt. Year: 2014-15 ITA No. 2593/Del/2026 : Asstt. Year: 2015-16 Silver Oak Projects Pvt. Ltd., Vs JCIT(OSD), C/o Sanjeev Anand & Associates, Central Circle-27, 136, Navyug Market, Ghaziabad, New Delhi-110055 Uttar Pradesh-201001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAKCS5889G Assessee by: Sh. Sumit Gupta, CA Revenue by: Sh. Umesh Chandra Bharti, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 20.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 07.08.2026 ORDER Per Raj Kumar Chauhan, Judicial Member: These twin appeals of the assessee are directed against the orders of ld. CIT(A)-29, New Delhi dated 27.01.2026 u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) wherein appeals have been dismissed ex-parte on the ground of non-compliance with the notices issued during the appellate proceedings, against assessment order dated 03.02.2024, respectively.

2.

By this common order, we propose to decide the ITA Nos. 2592 & 2593/Del/2026 as the parties are same and factual matrix is also same and in order to avoid multiplicity of

2 ITA Nos. 2592 & 2593/Del/2026 Silver Oak Projects Pvt. Ltd. decision, the same are being disposed off accordingly. ITA No. 2592/Del/2026 is taken as lead case.

3.

We have heard the ld. AR and the ld. DR. The ld. AR at the very outset submitted that impugned order has been passed ex-parte by the learned CIT(A) without affording adequate and effective opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It is further stated that the dismissal of the appeal for non- prosecution has violated the principle of section 250(6) of the Act. It was, therefore, prayed that the matter be restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after affording an adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

4.

The ld. DR supported the impugned order and submitted that despite several opportunities having been granted by the learned CIT(A), the assessee failed to respond to the notices issued during the appellate proceedings. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

5.

We have considered the rival submissions and examined the material on record. It is an admitted fact that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal primarily on account of non- prosecution. Hence, the points raised in the appeal before us regarding the appellate order having been passed against the assessee without bringing the factual matrix on record is a

3 ITA Nos. 2592 & 2593/Del/2026 Silver Oak Projects Pvt. Ltd. material illegality which needs to be considered by the ld. Lower Authority as per law. 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;” 6. Thus, the hearing mandated by Section 250(2)(a) of the Act is not a mere formality but a mandatory statutory requirement for following the principle of natural justice by the quasi-judicial authority.

7.

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.

4 ITA Nos. 2592 & 2593/Del/2026 Silver Oak Projects Pvt. Ltd. 8. Since the factual matrix as well as the decision of the ld. CIT(A) in the present appeal are identical to those involved in ITA No. 2592/Del/2026, the findings and reasoning recorded by the Tribunal therein shall apply mutatis mutandis to the present appeal, being ITA No. 2593/Del/2026 relating to A.Y. 2015-16.

9.

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos. 2592 & 2593/Del/2026 are allowed for statistical purposes. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 07/08/2026. Sd/- Sd/- (Ramit Kochar) (Raj Kumar Chauhan) Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 07/08/2026 *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 →