RAJAT BHASIN,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 43(1), DELHI, NEW DELHI

There is a delay of 78 days in filing the present appeal. Having considered the explanation furnished by the assessee and respectfully following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987)

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). The ld. AR submitted that the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte without affording the assessee an effective opportunity of being heard. It was further submitted that during the relevant period, the assessee was facing acute financial hardship and mental stress on account of substantial business losses. Owing to his financial constraints, he was unable to pay the professional fees of his Chartered Accountant and, consequently, could not effectively represent his case during the assessment as well as the appellate proceedings. It was, therefore, contended that the impugned order is in violation of the mandate contained in 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.

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

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 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:

In view of the above facts and circumstances, it is evident that the impugned order has been passed ex-parte without

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 30/07/2026. Sd/- Sd/- (Ramit Kochar) (Raj Kumar Chauhan) Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 30/07/2026 *Subodh Kumar, Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR