#Section 250 IT Act

The ITAT Kolkata has held that the CIT(A)’s dismissal of an income tax appeal without considering a timely adjournment request constitutes a fatal breach of natural justice, rendering the order void. This reinforces that even in faceless appeal systems, the right to be heard is non-negotiable and cannot be waived by procedural technicalities or non-appearance.

The ITAT Delhi has struck down an ex parte order passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, holding that failure to grant a meaningful opportunity to file written submissions and documentary evidence violates natural justice. The tribunal has mandated a fresh hearing with a 60-day window for the assessee to respond, reinforcing that procedural fairness cannot be sacrificed even in cases of apparent non-cooperation.

ITAT Mumbai condoned a 124-day delay in filing an appeal, holding that honest dependence on a tax consultant - not mere negligence - qualifies as sufficient cause under Section 250. This reinforces that statutory appeal rights must not be defeated by hyper-technical interpretations, especially when the taxpayer acted in good faith and provided credible evidence of the delay’s origin.

ITAT Delhi quashed an ex-parte dismissal of an income tax appeal for non-compliance with mandatory notice under Section 250(2)(a), holding that natural justice principles require a hearing opportunity before adjudication. The Tribunal directed fresh proceedings, emphasizing that appellate authorities must adhere to procedural fairness even in faceless appeals.

ITAT Amritsar rules that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) cannot dismiss an appeal under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act merely for non-prosecution. The appellate authority must decide the case on merits, ensuring compliance with principles of natural justice and statutory duty. This ruling reinforces the obligation of CIT(A) to adjudicate appeals substantively, impacting taxpayers facing procedural dismissals.