High Value Traders Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT

Per Raj Kumar Chauhan, Judicial Member:

The appeal of the asse ssee is d irected against the order dated 18.08.2025 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 dismisse d ex-parte on the ground that despite several opportunities, the appellant has failed to comply with the notices issued from time to time in re spect of appeal, against assessment order dated 29.03.202 5.

The assessee has filed an applicatio nseeking condonation of delay of 90 days in filing the present appeal. The conte nts of the applicatio n are reproduced as under:

We have consid ered the contents of the condonation application and the submissions made by the ld. AR. We find that the assesse e has satisfactorily explained the reasons for the delay. In view of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Co urt in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), wherein it has been held that a liberal approach should be adopted while considering applications for condonation of delay to substantial justice, we are satisfied that the assessee has shown sufficient cause. Accordingly, the delay of 90 days in filing the instant appeal is condoned in the larger interest of justice, and the appeal is admitted for ad judication on merits.

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 ld. CIT(A) for deciding afresh on merit after granting adequate opportunity of being heard.

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 ld. CIT(A).

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 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.