SURAJ TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘C’ : NEW DELHI)

BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 2357/Del/2026 Asstt. Year : 2012-13 SURAJ TRADING COMPANY VS. ITO, WARD 24(4), PRIVATE LIMITED, C.R. BUILDING, C/O M/S RADHESHYAM SHARMA & NEW DELHI COMPANY PVT. LTD., THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR SHRI RAKESH BANSAL, 351, III FLOOR, AGGARWAL MODERN BAZAR, LAWRENCE ROAD, INDL. AREA, DELHI – 110 035 [PAN: AAQCS0694D] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : None Respondent by : Adjournment Application by Ms. Sunita Yonzone, ITO on behalf of Sr. DR is rejected.

Date of Hearing 29.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement 29.06.2026

ORDER PER SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JM : 1. This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the impugned order dated 18.08.2025 passed in Appeal No. CIT(A), Delhi-8/10614/2019-20 by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961

(hereinafter referred to as “Act”) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13, wherein Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s appeal in default of the assessee. 2. At the threshold, it noted that there is delay of 123 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal for which assessee’s AR Shri Radheshyam Sharma, FCA has filed the condonation application alongwith supporting affidavit of Shri Rakesh Bansal, Director of the Assessee Company by stating therein that the previous counsel of the assessee, CA Ved Bansal passed away on 17.6.2025 and the assessee was not aware with the Ld. CIT’s order, this resulted in causing delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, which may kindly be condoned. After perusing the aforesaid application for condonation of delay, we find the cause supported with unrebutted affidavit, as sufficient. The delay of 123 days caused in filing the appeal is condoned, the appeal is admitted for hearing. 3. This appeal has been preferred on the grounds, in addition to others that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in passing exparte impugned order without affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 4. None responded for the assessee. However, adjournment application was moved by the ITO, C-Bench on behalf of the Ld. Sr. DR, after perusing the said adjournment application, the same was rejected. 5. We have perused the records. We notice that assessee did not respond to the various notices issued by the Ld. First Appellate Authority, therefore, Ld. CIT(A) passed exparte impugned by dismissing the appeal in default of assessee. The reluctant attitude of the assessee cannot be appreciated. However, in the interest of natural justice and fair play, we deem it fit and proper to afford last opportunity to the assessee and thus remit the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication afresh after affording adequate opportunity of hearing to assessee. We further direct the assessee to be diligent and cooperative in attending the hearings and making submissions before the Ld. CIT(A) for the expeditious and effective disposal of the appeal. Also, assessee should refrain from seeking any adjournment except for compelling and unavoidable circumstances. 2 | P a g e

Needless to say that the Ld. CIT(A) shall ensure the observance of the principles of natural justice. It is made clear that we have not made any observation in respect of the merits of the case. Accordingly, the appeal is liable to be allowed for statistical purposes. 6. In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 29.06.2026. Sd/- Sd/- (RENU JAUHRI) (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Date: 30.06.2026 SRBhatnaggar Copy forwarded to: - 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. DIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY By Order,

Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Delhi Bench

3 | P a g e