BATRA MEDICAL SERVICES PVT LTD,GAUTAM BUDHA NAGAR vs. ACIT CC-15, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5638/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 September 2026AY 2021-223 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) order was passed ex-parte without giving sufficient opportunity of hearing, thus violating the principle of natural justice. The Tribunal noted that there was nothing on record to demonstrate that the notices sent to the assessee were duly served or received. Citing Section 250(2)(a) of the Act, which mandates the right to be heard for the appellant, the Tribunal emphasized that this is a mandatory statutory requirement. Consequently, the Tribunal found that the end of justice would be met by restoring the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits, after affording an effective opportunity of hearing and considering the assessee's submissions. The assessee was directed to file necessary submissions and material before the CIT(A) within 60 days of the order. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Batra Medical Services Pvt. Ltd., is in appeal against the order dated 13.02.2026 passed by the CIT(A)-26, Delhi. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal, which was against the assessment order dated 17.03.2024, on the grounds of non-compliance with notices and failure to prosecute the appeal despite several opportunities. The assessment year in question is 2021-22. The assessee contends that the CIT(A) order was passed without providing sufficient opportunity to be heard, thereby violating the principle of natural justice and Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The revenue supported the lower authorities' decision but left the restoration of the matter to the Tribunal's discretion.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A) order dated 13.02.2026, dismissing the assessee's appeal for non-prosecution, was passed in violation of the principle of natural justice and Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by not affording sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the impugned order was passed without sufficient opportunity and that the dismissal for non-prosecution violated Section 250(6) of the Act. They prayed for the matter to be restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after adequate hearing. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue supported the lower authorities' order but left the discretion to the Tribunal regarding the restoration of the matter to the CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250(6),Section 250(2)(a)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: Sh. Raj Kumar Chauhan&

Hearing: 09.09.2026Pronounced: 23.09.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Raj Kumar Chauhan, Judicial Member & Sh. Amitabh Shukla, Accountant Member ITA No. 5638/Del/2026 : Asstt. Year : 2021-22 Batra Medical Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs ACIT/DCIT, F-114, J. S. Arcade, D-1, Sector-18, Central Circle-15, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, New Delhi-110055 Uttar Pradesh-201301 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAICB8417B Assessee by: Sh. Ashish Jain, CA Revenue by: Sh. Vikram Singh Sharma, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 09.09.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 23.09.2026 ORDER Per Raj Kumar Chauhan, Judicial Member: The appeal of the assessee is directed against the order dated 13.02.2026 of ld. CIT(A)-26, Delhipassed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) wherein appeal has been dismissed on the ground that despite several opportunities, the assessee has failed to comply with the notices issued from time to time, against assessment order dated 17.03.2024.

2.

At the very outset, the ld. AR submitted that the impugned order has been passed without giving sufficient opportunity to the assessee/appellant by the ld. CIT(A). It is further stated

2 ITA No. 5638/Del/2026 Batra Medical Services Pvt. Ltd. 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 ld. CIT(A) for deciding afresh on merit after granting adequate opportunity of being heard.

3.

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).

4.

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

3 ITA No. 5638/Del/2026 Batra Medical Services Pvt. Ltd. requirement for following the principle of natural justice by the quasi-judicial authority.

6.

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 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.

7.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 23/09/2026. Sd/- Sd/- (Amitabh Shukla) (Raj Kumar Chauhan) Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 23/09/2026 *Subodh Kumar, Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →