IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, HON’BLE VICE-PRESIDENT &

MRS. RENU JAUHRI, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 6244/DEL/2025; Assessment Year: 2014-15 ITA No. 6245/DEL/2025; Assessment Year: 2015-16 ITA No. 6246/DEL/2025; Assessment Year: 2016-17 ITA No. 6247/DEL/2025; Assessment Year: 2017-18 ITA No. 6248/DEL/2025; Assessment Year: 2018-19 Sushma Shrestha Vs DCIT Central Circle-13 A-34, Vasant Marg New Delhi Vasant Vihar New Delhi-57 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)

PAN No. FZIPS4355E Assessee by : Dr. Manas Shankar, Advocate Ms. Shouryendu Ray, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR Date of Hearing: 08.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 21.01.2026 ORDER PER RENU JAUHRI :

The above captioned five appeals are preferred by the assessee against the order dated 15.03.2025, passed by Ld. CIT(A), Delhi u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as, “Act”).

2. At the threshold, it is noted that the Appeals are time-barred by 125 days.

An application for condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee.

3. Since common issues have been raise in these appeals filed by the assessee, these are being disposed off by a common order. ITA No. 6244/DEL/2025 for A.Y. 2014-15 is taken up as the lead case and, the grounds of appeal are reproduced below:

“A. That the Impugned Order, passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), by way of ex-parte proceedings, is illegal and bad in law.

B. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred both in law and on facts in passing the Impugned Order without affording a fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the Appellant. The Appellant, being a foreign national not residing in India, did not regularly access the income tax portal where the notice was uploaded. Further, the notices sent by e-mail to an employee of the family concern remained unattended due to inadvertent oversight, resulting in denial of an effective opportunity of hearing. Moreover, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to serve a physical notice to the Appellant's local address. Therefore, the Ld. CIT (A) has acted in gross violation of the fundamental principles of natural justice by failing to give the Appellant the opportunity to rebut the unsubstantiated conjectures of the Respondent while mechanically replicating the Assessment Order without fresh application of mind. Therefore, on the ground of violation of the fundamental principle of audi alteram partem, the Impugned Order ought to be set aside.

C. That the Impugned Order has been passed in contravention of the legal mandate requiring physical hearing in the present matter. It is submitted that the concerned CIT(A), being part of the Central Charge, was statutorily required to conduct the proceedings through physical mode in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Act and CBDT notifications. The failure to adhere to this procedural requirement has resulted in a denial of effective opportunity of hearing to the Appellant, thereby vitiating the proceedings and rendering the Impugned Order liable to be set aside.

D. The Ld. CIT (A) has failed to consider the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dhakeswar Cotton Mills Lid v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 1955 AIR 65 which protects the assessee's right to full opportunity to be heard and place material on record. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that improper rejection of the assessee's submission by the Ld. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and reliance on conjectures and suspicions of the assessing officer is a gross violation of natural justice and directed the appeal to be remanded for reassessment. In the present case, the Ld. CIT (A) summarily dismissed the appeal by mechanically replicating the unsubstantiated surmises and conjectures of the Assessment Order, without according the Appellant fair and reasonable opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the Impugned Order is contrary to the Hon'ble Supreme Court's ruling and ought to be set aside.

E. That the Ld. CIT (A) acted in g