VIKASHNAGAR KISAN SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED,VIKASH NAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD1(1)(2), DEHRADUN

The assessee has filed an application dated 29.06.2026 seeking condonation of delay of 426 days in filing the present appeal. The contents of the application are reproduced as under:

We have considered the contents of the condonation We have considered the contents of the condonation We have considered the contents of the condonation application and the submissions made by the application and the submissions made by the ld. AR. We find . We find that the assessee has satisfactorily explained the reasons for that the assessee has satisfactorily explained the reasons for that the assessee has satisfactorily explained the reasons for the delay. In view of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble the delay. In view of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble the delay. In view of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) & Ors. (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), wherein it has been held , wherein it has been held

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 AO 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 Tribunal to consider the submissions for restoring the matter to the file of the AO.

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

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 ld. AR submitted that the assessment was framed ex-parte and therefore, prayed that the matter be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for adjudication afresh after granting the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. We have noticed that the Assessing Officer in the Assessment Order has recorded that the assessee neither furnished any reply nor sought any adjournment during the assessment proceedings. Considering the above facts and in the light of complete non-compliance by the assessee, the ld. Assessing Officer proceeded to make various additions without any material having been produced or submitted on

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 24/07/2026. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay Awasthi) (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