Jayshree Sharma vs ITO, Ward-2(2)

PER VIMAL KUMAR, JM:

The appeal filed by the appellant/ Assessee is against order dated 31.03.2026 of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/ NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “the CIT(A)”] under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) arising out of assessment order dated 23.12.2022 of the ld. Assessing Officer/Assessment Unit (hereinafter referred to as ‘the AO’) u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act for A.Y. 2021-22.

Ld. Authorized Representative for appellant/assessee submitted that Ld. CIT(A) erred in passing ex parte order and not condoning delay of 88 days in filing appeal due to reasonable and sufficient cause. The matter may be restored to the file of ld. CIT(A).

Ld. Departmental Representative relied on impugned order.

From examination of record in light of aforesaid rival contention, it is crystal clear that Ld. CIT(A) vide ex parte order dated 31.03.2026 dismissed the appeal being time barred by 88 days.

In view of above material facts and in interest of justice, the impugned order dated 31.03.2026 of ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for afresh decision in accordance with law after affording fair opportunity of hearing to the appellant/assessee.

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