ROHELLA CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 21(1), NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2452/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 July 2026AY 2014-153 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not provide an effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee, violating the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals were dismissed ex-parte by the CIT(A)/NFAC for non-compliance with notices. The assessee contended that they were not given sufficient opportunity to be heard, violating the principle of natural justice.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte dismissal of the appeal by the CIT(A) for non-prosecution violated the principles of natural justice and the statutory requirement of providing an effective opportunity of hearing.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250(2)(a),Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

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

Hearing: 07.07.2026Pronounced: 07.07.2026

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No. 2451/Del/2026
ITA No. 2452/Del/2026

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

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. 2451/Del/2026 :Asstt. Year: 2013-14 ITA No. 2452/Del/2026 :Asstt. Year: 2014-15 Rohella Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs Income Tax Officer, A-242, Basement, New Friends Ward-21(1), Colony, New Delhi-110025 New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AACCR2419M Assessee by: Sh. Shivam Malik, Adv. Revenue by: Sh. Sudeep Dabas, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 07.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 07.07.2026 ORDER Per Raj Kumar Chauhan, Judicial Member: The appeals of the assessee are directed against the orders of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi dated 04.02.2026 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 29.05.2023.

2.

By this common order, we propose to decide the ITA Nos. 2451 & 2452/Del/2026 as the parties are same and factual matrix is also same and in order to avoid the multiplicity of

2 ITA Nos. 2451 & 2452/Del/2026 Rohella Constructions Pvt. Ltd.

decision, the same are being disposed off accordingly. ITA No. 2451/Del/2026 is taken as lead case.

3.

We have heard the ld. AR and the ld. DR. The ld. AR at the very outset submitted that impugned order has been passed ex-parte 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 ld. CIT(A) for deciding afresh on merit after granting adequate opportunity of being heard.

4.

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 ld. CIT(A).

5.

We have considered the rival submissions and examined the material on record. It is evident from the contents of the impugned order that the effective opportunity of hearing has not been granted by the ld. CIT(A) while disposing the appeal 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 duly served upon him or received by him. Section 250(2)(a) lays down as under:

3 ITA Nos. 2451 & 2452/Del/2026 Rohella Constructions Pvt. Ltd.

“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;” 6. 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.

7.

In view of the above facts and circumstances, it is evident that the impugned orders have 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 make the necessary submissions/ detailed material before the Ld. CIT(A) within the period of 60 days of this order.

8.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 07/07/2026. Sd/- Sd/- (S. Rifaur Rahman) (Raj Kumar Chauhan) Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 07/07/2026 *Subodh Kumar, Sr. PS*

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →