The Tribunal held that in the interest of substantive justice, the assessee deserved another chance to present the facts before the authorities below. Therefore, the ex parte orders passed by the CIT(A) were set aside.

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause due to the email ID change as per RBI guidelines. Noting that the CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders and the issues required factual verification, the tribunal restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer to decide afresh after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The tribunal condoned the 201-day delay, noting the assessee's illiteracy and incorrect email ID for notices. It found both the assessment and CIT(A) orders were ex-parte and violated principles of natural justice, thus restoring the matter to the Assessing Officer for a de-novo assessment with a fresh opportunity for the assessee to be heard.

The ITAT, with the Revenue's consent, set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication. The tribunal directed that the assessee be given an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal found that both the assessment and first appellate orders were ex-parte and the CIT(A) had not decided the appeal on merits. In the interest of justice, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for a de-novo assessment, with directions for both parties to participate.