What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeal for adjudication. It found that the CIT(A) order was passed ex-parte without sufficient opportunity of hearing, violating the principles of natural justice.

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte due to non-compliance with notices. The assessee filed a condonation application for a delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT, which was allowed.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) order passed ex-parte without sufficient opportunity of hearing is valid. Whether the principles of natural justice were followed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250(6), Section 250(2)(a)

High Value Traders Private… vs DCIT | ITAT Delhi 2026

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

Before: Sh. Ramit Kochar & Sh. Raj Kumar Chauhan

Hearing: 04.08.2026Pronounced: 04.08.2026

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. 476/Del/2026 : Asstt. Year: 2016-17 High Value Traders Pvt. Ltd., Vs DCIT, A-36, Vishwakarma Colony, Circle-10(1), Prahladpur, New Delhi-110044 New Delhi-110002 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACH2375N Assessee by: Sh. Abhinav Bansal, CA Revenue by: Sh. Raghubir Singh, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 04.08.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 04.08.2026 ORDER Per Raj Kumar Chauhan, Judicial Member: The appeal of the assessee is directed against the order dated 18.08.2025 of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC 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 appellant has failed to comply with the notices issued from time to time in respect of appeal, against assessment order dated 29.03.2025.

The assessee has filed an applicationseeking condonation of delay of 90 days in filing the present appeal. The contents of the application are reproduced as under:

2 ITA No. 476/Del/2026 High Value Traders Pvt. Ltd.

3 ITA No. 476/Del/2026 High Value Traders Pvt. Ltd. 3. We have considered the contents of the condonation application and the submissions made by the ld. AR. We find that the assessee has satisfactorily explained the reasons for the delay. In view of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), wherein it has been held that a liberal approach should be adopted while considering applications for condonation of delay to substantial justice, we are satisfied that the assessee has shown sufficient cause. Accordingly, the delay of 90 days in filing the instant appeal is condoned in the larger interest of justice, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits.

We have heard the ld. AR and the ld. DR. The ld. AR at the very outset submitted that 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 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.

The ld. DR, on the other hand, while supporting the judgment of lower authorities has left it to the discretion of the

4 ITA No. 476/Del/2026 High Value Traders Pvt. Ltd. Tribunal to consider the submissions for restoring the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A).

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;” 7. 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.

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

5 ITA No. 476/Del/2026 High Value Traders Pvt. Ltd. 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.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 04/08/2026. Sd/- Sd/- (Ramit Kochar) (Raj Kumar Chauhan) Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 31/08/2026 *Subodh Kumar, Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

HIGH VALUE TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 10(1), DELHI

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