What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was passed without an effective hearing, violating the principle of natural justice. Therefore, the order was set aside.

The assessee's appeal was dismissed ex-parte by the CIT(A) due to non-compliance with notices. The assessee argued that no effective opportunity of hearing was provided, leading to a miscarriage of justice.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte dismissal by the CIT(A) without providing an effective opportunity of hearing violates the principles of natural justice.

M/S Best Infratech Private Limited vs ITO | ITAT Delhi 2026

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

Before: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Raj Kumar Chauhan

Hearing: 09.07.2026Pronounced: 09.07.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman, Accountant Member & Sh. Raj Kumar Chauhan, Judicial Member ITA No. 2493/Del/2026 : Asstt. Year: 2015-16 M/s Best Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, Flat No. 869, Sector-19, PKT-3, Ward-4(1), Dwarka, New Delhi-110075 New Delhi-110002 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AADCB0598G Assessee by: Sh. Archit Pandey, Adv. Revenue by: Sh. Sudeep Dabas, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 09.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 09.07.2026 ORDER Per Raj Kumar Chauhan, Judicial Member: The appeal of the assessee is directed against the order dated 23.12.2025 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, against assessment order dated 27.03.2022.

We have heard the ld. AR and the ld. DR. The ld. AR would submit that the impugned order has resulted into miscarriage of justice as principle of natural justice has not been followed because no effective opportunity of hearing was given as the

2 ITA No. 2493/Del/2026 Best Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. assessee and therefore the matter may be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding afresh.

The ld. DR, on the other hand, while supporting the judgment of the learned CIT(A) has left to the discretion of the Tribunal to consider the submissions of the assessee as per law.

We have considered the rival submission and examined the record, 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;” 5. 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 without effective hearing and principle of natural justice has not been followed For these reasons, the impugned order is not maintainable and accordingly set aside. Since, Assessment order is also ex-parte, hence the end of justice shall be met in case the matter is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for deciding the

3 ITA No. 2493/Del/2026 Best Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. issue afresh by affording an effective opportunity of hearing and considering the submissions to be made by the appellant/assessee. The assessee/appellant is also directed to make the necessary submissions/ detailed material before the Assessing Officer 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 09/07/2026. Sd/- Sd/- (S. Rifaur Rahman) (Raj Kumar Chauhan) Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 14/07/2026 *Subodh Kumar, Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

M/S BEST INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ITO, CIRCLE-16(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