Rajat Bhasin vs Income Tax Officer

Per Raj Kumar Chauhan, Judicial Member:

The appeal of the assessee is dir ected against the order of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi dated 29.08.2025 u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) wherein appeal has been dismissed ex-parte on the ground of non-compliance with the notices issued dur ing the appellate proceedings, against assessme nt order dated 25.03.2023 wherein addition of Rs.5,37,35 ,444/- was made u/s 44AD of the Act.

There is a delay of 78 days in filing the present appeal. Having considered the explanation furnished by the assessee and respectfully following the jud gment of the Hon'ble Supreme Cour t in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), the delay is condoned in the interest o f substantial justice.

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 submitted that the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte without affording the assessee an effe ctive opportunity of being heard . It was further submitted that during the relevant period, the assessee was facing acute financial hardship and mental stress on account of substantial business losse s. Owing to his financial constraints, he was unable to pay the professional fees of his Chartered Accountant and, consequently, could not effe ctively represent his case dur ing the asse ssment as well as the appellate proceedings. It was, therefore, contended that the impug ned order is in violation of the mandate contained in section 250(6) of the Act. It was, therefore, prayed that the matter be restored to the file of the ld. CIT (A) for fresh adjudication on merits after affording an adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The ld. DR supp orted the impugned order and submitted that despite several opportunitie s having been g ranted by the learned CIT(A), the assessee failed to respond to the notices issued during the appellate proceedings. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

We have conside red the rival submissions and examined the mater ial on record. It is an ad mitted fact that the ld. CIT(A) has d ismissed the appeal primarily on account of non-prosecution. Hence, the points raised in the appeal before us regarding the appellate order having been passed against the assessee without bringing the factual matrix on record is a material illegality which needs to be considered by the ld. Lower Authority as per law. On 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 2 50(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.