What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee will be given an ample opportunity to be heard and present their case.

The assessee could not appear before the Ld. CIT(A) due to a communication gap with their tax consultant. This resulted in a lack of proper compliance and an inability to present facts before the appellate authority.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was denied a proper opportunity of being heard before the Ld. CIT(A) due to non-attendance.

Ravindra Pratap Singh Yadav… vs ITO | ITAT Dehradun 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DEHRADUN CIRCUIT BENCH: DEHRADUN

For Appellant: Shri Pushpak Garg, CA

For Respondent: Shri Mohan Lal, Sr. DR

Hearing: 21/07/2026Pronounced: 21/07/2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DEHRADUN CIRCUIT BENCH: DEHRADUN BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.294/DDN/2026 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2020-21) Ravindra Pratap Singh Yadav, Income Tax Officer, Shivaji Enclave, Lakhanwala Ward-1(1)(3), Khas, Herbertpur, Vs. Dehradun. Dehradun-248142. PAN-AEOPY6125N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Pushpak Garg, CA Department by Shri Mohan Lal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 21/07/2026 Date of Pronouncement 21/07/2026 O R D E R PER SANJAY AWASTHI, AM:

This appeal arises from the order dated 28.04.2026, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter as ‘the Act’), by Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi.

2.1 Right at the outset, the Ld. AR pleaded for adjournment in the matter but he was asked to brief the Bench on the grievance of the assessee. It was fairly mentioned by the Ld. AR that in this case, the assessee could not appear before the Ld. CIT(A) and it was pointed out that this fact is recorded in Para 4 of the impugned order. The Ld. AR stated that due to a communication gap between the assessee and his tax

2 ITA No.294 /DDN/2026 Ravindra Pratap Singh Yadav vs. ITO

consultant, proper compliance could not be made before the Ld. First Appellate Authority. It was prayed that the assessee may be given one more chance to present the facts before the Ld. CIT(A) so that there is a proper opportunity of being heard and the assessee has a chance to present the facts.

2.1 The Ld. AR relied on the orders of authorities below. 3. We have considered the submissions of Ld. AR/DR and have gone through the facts before us, including the grounds of appeal. It is appreciated that this case involves a determination of income on the basis of facts. It is further seen that before the Ld. CIT(A) the facts could not be thrashed out due to non-attendance before the Ld. CIT(A). Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it fit to set aside the impugned order and remand this matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. While the Ld. CIT(A) would give ample opportunity of being heard, the assessee would do well to respond to such opportunities appropriately.

In the result, this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 21/07/2027.

Sd/- Sd/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) (SANJAY AWASTHI) VICE PRESIDEN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated:28/07/2026 *PK, Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT

3 ITA No.294 /DDN/2026 Ravindra Pratap Singh Yadav vs. ITO

CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI (Dehradun Circuit Bench, Dehradun)

RAVINDRA PRATAP SINGH YADAV,UTTARAKHAND vs. ITO WARD -1(1)(3) DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN

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