BABLU RAY,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 63(1), CIVIC CENTER

By this common order, we propose to decide the ITA Nos. 839 & 840/Del/2026 as the parties are same and factual matrix is also same and in order to avoid multiplicity of decision, the

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 250(6) of the Act. Hence, it is prayed that matter be restored to the file of AO 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 AO.

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;”

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 ld. AR submitted that the assessment was framed ex-parte and therefore, prayed that the matter be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for adjudication afresh after granting the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. We have noticed that the Assessing Officer in the Assessment Order has recorded that the assessee neither furnished any reply nor sought any adjournment during the assessment proceedings. Considering the above facts and in the light of complete non-compliance by the assessee, the ld. Assessing Officer proceeded to make addition without any material having been produced or submitted on behalf of the assessee before completion of the assessment. Similar observations have also been recorded in paras 1 & 2 of the assessment order, wherein it has been categorically mentioned that the assessee neither submitted any response nor filed any reply. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the ld. AR, we find it expedient,

As regards ITA No. 840/Del/2026 is concerned, since the factual matrix as well as the decision of the ld. CIT(A) in the present appeal are identical to those involved in ITA No. 839/Del/2026, as aforesaid, the findings and reasoning recorded by the Tribunal therein shall apply mutatis mutandis to the present appeal also.

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA Nos. 839 & 840/Del/2026 are allowed for statistical purposes. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 19/05/2026. Sd/- Sd/- (Manish Agarwal) (Raj Kumar Chauhan) Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 14/08/2026 *Subodh Kumar, Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR