What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee was denied a fair opportunity of being heard and filing necessary details. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed summarily without proper consideration of the grounds raised. The assessee, an elderly foreign national, claimed non-receipt of notices due to reliance on e-portal and email, leading to a denial of a fair hearing.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice by dismissing the appeal summarily without affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

Sushma Shrestha vs DCIT | ITAT Delhi 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH, ‘B’: NEW DELHI

Before: MS. MADHUMITA ROY & SHRI KRIWANT SAHAY

For Appellant: Ms. Neelu Mohan, Advocate

Hearing: 29.06.2026Pronounced: 30.06.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘B’: NEW DELHI BEFORE MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI KRIWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No.1969/Del/2026 [Assessment Year: 2013-14] Sushma Shrestha Vs. DCIT A-34, Vasant Marg, Vasant Central Circle – 13 Vihar, South West Delhi Delhi New Delhi PAN No. FZIPS4355E Appellant Respondent Appellant by Sh. Manas Shankar Ray, Advocate Ms. Neelu Mohan, Advocate Sh. Shashwat Saxena, Advocate Respondent by Sh. Om Prakash, CIT DR

Date of Hearing 29.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement 30.06.2026

ORDER PER KRINWANT SAHAY A.M. Appeal in this case has been filed by the Assessee against the order dated 26.11.2025 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-26, Delhi for the A.Y. 2019-20. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal :-

That the Impugned Order, passed by the Ld. CIT(A) having been adjudicated in a summary manner, is erroneous and unsustainable in law. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred both in law and on facts in passing the Impugned Order without affording a fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the Appellant. The Appellant, being an elderly lady and a foreign national not residing in India, did not regularly access the income-tax portal on which the notices were uploaded. Further, the motices were also sent by e- mail to the Appellant's erstwhile representatives at Keshav@vakassociates.com and were never brought to the Appellant's knowledge, whereby resulting in a complete denial of an effective opportunity to respond. Additionally, no physical notice was served at the Appellant's local address. Consequently, the Ld. CIT(A) acted in gross violation of the principles of natural justice by depriving the Appellant of the opportunity to place the correct Grounds of Appeal on record and hence, the Impugned Order is liable to be set aside.

C That the Impugned Order has been passed in contravention of the legal mandate requiring physical hearing in the present matter. It is submitted that the concerned CIT(A), being part of the Central Charge, was statutorily required to conduct the proceedings through physical mode in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Act and CBDT notifications. The failure to adhere to this procedural requirement has resulted in a denial of effective opportunity of hearing to the Appellant, thereby vitiating the proceedings and rendering the Impugned Order liable to be set aside.

D. The Ld. CIT (A) has failed to consider the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dhakeswar Cotton Mills Ltd v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 1955 AIR 65 which protects the assessee's right to full opportunity to be heard and place material on record. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that improper rejection of the assessee's submission by the Ld. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and reliance on conjectures and suspicions of the assessing officer is a gross violation

of natural justice and directed the appeal to be remanded for reassessment. In the present case, the Ld. CIT (A) summarily dismissed the appeal, without according the Appellant fair and reasonable opportunity to be heard or represented. Therefore, the Impugned Order is contrary to the Hon'ble Supreme Court's ruling and ought to be set aside.

E. That the Act is a welfare legislation which ought to be interpreted in a manner granting the benefit of doubt to the assessee. Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Raipur in Brajesh Singh Bhadoria v. The Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Naya Raipur, IT(SS)A Nos. 1 to 6, 8 & 9/RPR/2025 and Ravikumar Kumhar v ITO, Bilaspur, ITA No.36/RPR/2024 granted the assessee another opportunity to be heard by the Ld. CIT (A) noting that while there was no compliance by the assessee, mala fide cannot be attributed and therefore, benefit of doubt ought to be given favourably. In light of this interpretation of the Act which protects the assessee's interests, the Impugned Order ought to be set aside and a fair and reasonable opportunity to be heard must be granted to the Appellant. 3. At the very outset the Ld. Counsel for the assessee brought it to our notice that Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal without taking on record the details and considering them on different issues raised by the assessee in appeal before him. Accordingly, he requested that the matter may be remanded back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A).

Per contra the Ld. DR has supported the orders of the authorities below.

We have considered the orders passed by the lower authorities. We have also considered the arguments made by both the parties during proceedings before us. In order to have natural justice we are of this considered view that

assessee should have given one more opportunity of being heard and filing all the required details before the appellate authority on different issues raised by it in the appeal. Accordingly, we are inclined, to remand this case back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the issue afresh after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee as required under law. The assessee is also directed to file all necessary papers/ documents before the Ld. CIT(A) and reply properly of queries raised by the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the assesee’s appeal is remanded back to the file of the ld. CIT(A). 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 30.06.2026.

Sd/- Sd/-

[MADHUMITA ROY] [KRINWANT SAHAY] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANTMEMBER Dated:30.06.2026 NEHA , Sr.P.S.* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. PCIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi

SUSHMA SHRESTHA,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -13, DELHI, 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