What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing exceptional circumstances. It held that the CIT(A) order was passed ex-parte without sufficient opportunity of hearing, violating the principles of natural justice.

The assessee's appeal was dismissed ex-parte by the CIT(A) for non-compliance with notices. There was a significant delay in filing the present appeal due to the demise of the assessee's tax consultant and their erstwhile counsel.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte dismissal by the CIT(A) for non-compliance with notices was justified, and whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.

M/S. Usha Rani Traders Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT | ITAT Delhi 2026

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

Before: Sh. Raj Kumar Chauhan & Sh. Manish Agarwal

Hearing: 19.05.2026Pronounced: 19.05.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Raj Kumar Chauhan, Judicial Member & Sh. Manish Agarwal, Accountant Member ITA No. 842/Del/2026 : Asstt. Year: 2017-18 M/s Usha Rani Traders Pvt. Ltd., Vs CCIT, 528, Katra Ishwar Bhawan, Khari Circle-27(1), Baoli, Delhi-110006 New Delhi-110002 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AABCU2892E Assessee by: Sh. Vaibhav Gupta, Adv. Revenue by: Sh. Jitender Singh, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 19.05.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 19.05.2026 ORDER Per Raj Kumar Chauhan, Judicial Member: The appeal of the assessee is directed against the order dated 12.03.2025 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 the Assessment Order dated 31.12.2018.

There is a delay of 241 days in filing the present appeal. Having considered the application for condonation of delay, the affidavit filed in support thereof, and the submissions of the ld. AR. It is evident from the record that the delay in filing the present appeal occurred due to exceptional circumstances

2 ITA No. 842/Del/2026 Usha Rani Traders Pvt. Ltd. beyond the control of the assessee. Late Shri Subash Chander Babber, who was exclusively handling the income-tax matters of the assessee-company, expired on 08.06.2024. Thereafter, the assessee relied upon its erstwhile counsel, Shri Ashish Saraswat, Advocate, who also unfortunately passed away on 20.09.2025. Consequently, the assessee was left without access to the relevant records and appellate documents, compelling the newly engaged counsel to obtain copies of the records from the Assessing Officer before filing the present appeal.

In these peculiar facts and circumstances, we are satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient and bona fide cause from filing the appeal within the prescribed period. Accordingly, following the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (167 ITR 471), we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits.

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

3 ITA No. 842/Del/2026 Usha Rani Traders Pvt. Ltd. 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.

In view of the above facts and circumstances, it is evident that the impugned order has been passed ex-parte without

4 ITA No. 842/Del/2026 Usha Rani Traders Pvt. Ltd. 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 19/05/2026. Sd/- Sd/- (Manish Agarwal) (Raj Kumar Chauhan) Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 10/08/2026 *Subodh Kumar, Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

M/S. USHA RANI TRADERS PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-27(1), NEW 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