What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) order was passed ex-parte without sufficient opportunity and adherence to natural justice. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The assessee's appeal was dismissed ex-parte by the CIT(A) for non-compliance with notices. The assessee contended that sufficient opportunity was not provided and the dismissal violated the principle of natural justice.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) order passed ex-parte without sufficient opportunity and adherence to natural justice is sustainable.

Saurabh Bansal, New Delhi vs ITO | ITAT Delhi 2026

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

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. 2463/Del/2026 : Asstt. Year: 2022-23 Saurabh Bansal, Vs Income Tax Officer, T-184, Shukkar Bazar, Uttam Nagar, Ward-43(1), Om Vihar, New Delhi-110059 New Delhi-110002 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AUSPB1700C Assessee by: Sh. Sanjay Joshi, CA 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 appeal of the assessee is directed against the order dated 16.01.2026 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 22.03.2024.

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

2 ITA No. 2463/Del/2026 Saurabh Bansal 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.

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).

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 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.

3 ITA No. 2463/Del/2026 Saurabh Bansal 6. 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 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 07/07/2026. 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

SAURABH BANSAL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 43(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