What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) order was passed ex-parte without sufficient opportunity and without following the principle of natural justice. It was noted that there was no proof of proper service of notices on the assessee.

The assessee's appeal was dismissed ex-parte by the CIT(A) for non-compliance with notices. The assessee contended that the order was passed against a deceased person without bringing legal heirs on record and without sufficient opportunity.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) order passed ex-parte against a deceased assessee without proper notice and opportunity violates principles of natural justice.

Avinash Singh Grewal, New Delhi vs ACIT | ITAT Delhi 2026

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

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

For Appellant: Adv. &

For Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Hearing: 15.04.2026Pronounced: 08.07.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman, Accountant Member & Sh. Raj Kumar Chauhan, Judicial Member ITA No. 5486/Del/2025 :Asstt. Year: 2018-19 Avinash Singh Grewal, Vs ACIT, A-15/33, Vasant Vihar, Circle-28(1), New Delhi-110057 New Delhi-110002 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. ACFPG8979B Assessee by: Sh. Deepanshu Kaushik, Adv. & Sh. Paritosh Jain, Adv. Revenue by: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 15.04.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 08.07.2026 ORDER Per Raj Kumar Chauhan, Judicial Member: The appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi dated 16.07.2025 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 opportunity, the appellant has failed to comply with the notices issued from time to time, against assessment order dated 16.03.2021 wherein addition of Rs.78,67,805/- was made on account of income from other sources as well as interest accrued therein on the amount deposited in bank account.

2 ITA No.5486/Del/2025 Avinash Singh Grewal 2. 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 has also filed written submissions wherein it is stated that ld. CIT(A) has passed the order against the deceased assessee despite the factum of death of assessee during the pendency of the appeal due to Covid-19 pandemic was brought to the notice of 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 in the written submissions on behalf of the assessee/appellant that matter be restored to the file of ld. CIT(A) for deciding afresh on merit after granting adequate opportunity of being heard.

The ld. DR on the other hand would submit that assessee/appellant has suffered against ex-parte order themselves as they have neither brought to the notice of the ld. CIT(A) about the death of the assessee nor filed any reply to the various notices issued. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

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. Hence, the points raised in

3 ITA No.5486/Del/2025 Avinash Singh Grewal the appeal before us regarding the appellate order having been passed against the deceased assessee without bringing the legal heirs of the assessee 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:

“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 ex-parte without giving sufficient opportunity of hearing and principle of natural justice has not been followed. The end of justice shall be met in case the matter is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the 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

4 ITA No.5486/Del/2025 Avinash Singh Grewal make the necessary submissions/ detailed material before the Ld. CIT(A) 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 08/07/2026. Sd/- Sd/- (S. Rifaur Rahman) (Raj Kumar Chauhan) Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 08/07/2026 *Subodh Kumar, Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

AVINASH SINGH GREWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -28(1), NEW 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