Bablu Ray vs Income Tax Officer

Per Raj Kumar Chauhan, Judicial Member:

These twin appeals of the assessee are directed against the orders of ld . C IT(A)/ NFAC, Delhi dated 12.02.2025 u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) where in appeals have been dismissed ex-parte on the ground of non-compliance with the no tice s issued during the appellate proceedings, against assessment order dated 25.03.2022 and 02.03.2023, resp ectively.

By this commo n 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 decisio n, the same are being disposed off accordingly. ITA No. 839/Del/2026 is taken as lead case .

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). It is further stated that the dismissal of the appeal for non-p rosecutio n 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 mer it after granting adequate opportunity of being he ard.

The ld. DR, on the o ther hand, while supporting the judgme nt of lower authorities has left it to the discretion o f the Tribunal to consider the submissions for restoring the matter to the file of the AO.

We have considered the rival submissions and e xamined the material on record. Admittedly, the appeal by ld. CIT(A) has not been adjudicated on merit. O n perusal o f 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:

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 been followed. The ld. AR submitted that the assessment w as framed ex-parte and there fore, prayed that the matter be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for adjudicatio n 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 comple te non-compliance by the assessee, the ld. Assessing Officer proceeded to make addition without any material having been produced or sub mitted on behalf of the assessee before comple tion of the assessment. Similar observations have also been recorded in paras 1 & 2 o f the assessment orde r, 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, in the interest of justice , the matter needs to b e restored to the file of the AO for deciding the issue afresh after giving 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 AO within the period of 60 days of this order.

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 there in 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.