Avinash Singh Grewal vs ACIT

Per Raj Kumar Chauhan, Judicial Member:

The appeal of the assessee is dir ected against the order of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi dated 16.07.2025 u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) wherein appeal has been dismisse d ex-parte on the ground that despite opportunity, the appellant has failed to comply with the notices issued from time to time, against assessment order dated 16.03 .2021 where in additio n of Rs.78 ,67,805/- was made on account of income from other sources as well as interest accrued there in on the amo unt de posited in bank acco unt.

We have heard the ld. AR and the ld. DR. The ld. AR at the very outset sub mitted that imp ugned order has been passed without giving sufficient opportunity to the assessee/appellant by the ld. CIT(A). The ld . AR has also filed wr itten submissio ns wherein it is stated that ld. CIT(A) has passe d the order against the deceased assessee despite the factum of death of assessee during the pe ndency of the appeal due to Covid-19 pandemic was brought to the notice of the ld . CIT(A). It is further stated that the dismissal o f the appeal for non-prosecution has violated the principle of sectio n 250(6) of the Act. Hence, it is prayed in the wr itten submissio ns on behalf of the assessee/appellant that matter be restored to the file o f ld. CIT(A) for deciding afresh on merit after granting adequate opportunity of being heard.

The ld. DR on the other hand would submit that assessee/appellant has suffered against ex-parte order the mselves as they have neither brought to the notice of the ld. CIT(A) about the death of the assessee nor filed any reply to the various notices issued. Hence , prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

We have conside red the rival submissions and examined the material on record. Admittedly, the appeal by ld. CIT(A) has not been adjudicated on mer it. Hence, the points r aised in the appeal before us regarding the appellate order having been passed against the dece ased assessee w ithout bringing the legal heirs of the assessee on record is a material illegality which needs to b e considered by the ld. Lower Authority as per law. 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 w ere duly served upon him or received by him. Section 250(2)(a) lays down as under:

Thus, the hear ing mandated by Section 250(2)(a) of the Act is no t a mere formality but a mandatory statutory requirement for following the principle of natur al justice by the quasi-judicial authority.

In view of the ab ove facts and circumstances, it is evident that the impugned order has been passed ex-parte without giving sufficient opportunity of hearing and principle of natur al justice has not b een followed. The end of justice shall be met in case the matter is re stored 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) w ithin the period of 60 days of this order.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.