What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) violated the principles of natural justice by not providing an effective opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The assessee filed appeals for multiple assessment years. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeals for non-prosecution after issuing a notice with a very short hearing window and ignoring the assessee's adjournment request.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice by dismissing the appeal ex-parte without granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

Gramin Bal Vikas Shiksha Samiti… vs ITO | ITAT Delhi 2026

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

Before: SHRI M. BALAGANESH & SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR

For Appellant: CA (VC)

Hearing: 21/7/2026Pronounced: 24/7/2026

ITA NOS. 2215 TO 2220/DEL/2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI

BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA Nos. 2215, 2216, 2217, 2218, 2219 & 2220/Del/2026 (AYrs. 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23)

GRAMIN BAL VIKAS SHIKSHA Vs ITO EXEMPTION, SAMITI, AAYAKAR VPO SUNARIA KHURD, BHAWAN, ROHTAK, ROHTAK, HO ROHTAK, the HARYANA-124001 HARYANA-124001 (PAN: AABAG6762H) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)

Appellant by Sh. Naveen Kumar Goyal, CA (VC) Respondent by Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR.

Date of hearing: 21/7/2026 Date of Pronouncement: 24/7/2026

ORDER PER BENCH

These six appeals filed by the assessee are preferred against the separate orders of the Ld. JCIT(A), Kochi [for short hereinafter referred to as the “(CIT(A)”] relevant to assessment years 2017-18 to 2022-23. Since these appeals are inter-connected, hence, we have heard all the appeals together and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience, by dealing with appeal relevant to assessment year 2017-18.

ITA NOS. 2215 TO 2220/DEL/2026

At the outset, it is submitted by the Ld. AR that Ld. CIT(A) erred in passing the impugned order without granting effective and reasonable opportunity of being heard, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. It was further submitted that Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the appeal was filed on 2.2.2026, notice of hearing was issued on 3.2.2026 and the case was fixed for hearing on 9.2.206, granting an unreasonably short and illusory opportunity and decided the case on first hearing itself, ignoring the adjournment request of the assessee. Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 3. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the records. Upon careful consideration, we find that it was the contention of the Ld. AR that Ld. Addl/JCIT(A) erred in passing the impugned exparte order without granting effective and reasonable opportunity of being heard and also ignored the adjournment request of the assessee thereby violating the principles of natural justice. We further note that Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) in his order has observed that notice u/s. 250 of the Act for hearing was issued on 3.2.2026, but the assessee has not furnished any online response and due to this reason, the Ld. Addl. /JCIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of non-prosecution. In view of the aforesaid factual matrix and in the larger interest of justice, we deem it fit and proper to remit back the issues in dispute to the file of the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A) for its fresh adjudication, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Assessee is also directed to fully cooperate with the Ld. First Appellate Authority and furnish the requisite evidences/documents, if any, before it to canvass its case.

ITA NOS. 2215 TO 2220/DEL/2026

Accordingly, the appeal relevant for assessment year 2017-18 is allowed for statistical purposes. 4. As far as other appeals relevant to AYrs 2018-19 to 2022-23 are concerned, our aforesaid decision taken in AY 2017-18 shall apply mutatis mutandis in remaining 05 appeals of the assessee as well. Accordingly, the appeals relevant to assessment years 2018-19 to 2022-23 are also allowed for statistical purpose on the similar lines, as aforesaid. 5. In the result, all the 06 appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 24-7-2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (M. BALAGANESH) (SUDHIR KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

*SR BHATNAGGAR*

Date:- 24.7.2026

GRAMIN BAL VIKAS SHIKSHA SAMITI,ROHTAK vs. ITO EXEMPTION, ROHTAK

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