What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Observing that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT with a significant delay of 669 days. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) confirmed additions in violation of law and principles of natural justice.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) order was passed in violation of natural justice, and if the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.

Sai Nath Trade Link Private… vs ITO | ITAT Delhi 2026

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

Before: SH. SUDHIR KUMAR & SH. MANISH AGARWAL

Hearing: 23/06/2026Pronounced: 23/06/2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘H’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA NO. 969/DEL/2026 (AY 2017-18)

SAI NATH TRADE LINK Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PRIVATE LIMITED, WARD 22(2), 67-A, BHARAT NAGAR, NEAR C.R. BUILDING, ITO, I.P. NEW FRIENDS COLONY, ESTATE, NEW DELHI – 110 065 NEW DELHI – 110 002 (PAN: AAMCS5014P) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)

Appellants by None Respondent by Sh. Sandeep Tripathi, Sr. DR

Date of hearing: 23/06/2026 Date of Pronouncement: 23/06/2026 ORDER PER SUDHIR KUMAR, JM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi pertaining to A.Y. 2017-18. 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. Accordingly, heard the Ld. DR and case file perused. 3. At the threshold, it is noted that there is a delay of 669 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. DR did not raise any objection for condoning the delay, hence, the delay in dispute is condoned and accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is admitted.

It is further noted that it was the contention of the assessee made in the ground of appeal that the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the additions in violation of law and principles of natural justice. 5. We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the records. It is an admitted fact that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed the exparte order, therefore, in view of the aforesaid factual matrix and in the interest of justice, in our considered opinion, the matter requires to be remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with the directions to afford adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee to substantiate its case. Assessee is also directed to fully cooperate with the ld. CIT(A) during the proceedings in order to canvass its case appropriately. We hold and direct accordingly. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 23.06.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- ( MANISH AGARWAL) ( SUDHIR KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

SR Bhatanaggar Date:- 07.07.2026

SAI NATH TRADE LINK PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD 22(2), 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