JITIN GUPTA,DELHI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL-1, FARIDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1655/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 June 2025AY 2019-20Bench: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given an adequate opportunity of hearing, as an adjournment application was filed but not considered before the ex-parte order was passed by the CIT(A).

What were the facts?

The assessee preferred appeals against the orders of the CIT(A). The assessee's representative sought an adjournment to file evidence in response to notices, but this was not accommodated.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was denied a proper opportunity of hearing by the Ld. CIT(A) before passing an ex-parte order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES: G : NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar, CA &, Shri Suraj, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri N.K. Bansal, CIT-DR
Hearing: 25.06.2025Pronounced: 25.06.2025

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: G : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITAs No.1648 to 1655/Del/2025 Assessment Years: 2011-12 to 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2019-20 Jitin Gupta, Vs DCIT, HSIDC, SCO-47, Central-1, Sector-7, Faridabad. Faridabad – 121 006, Haryana. PAN: AHBPG1083D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Raj Kumar, CA & Shri Suraj, Advocate Revenue by : Shri N.K. Bansal, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 25.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 25.06.2025 ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:

These appeals are preferred by the assessee against the orders dated 31.01.2025 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-3, Gurgaon.

2.

On hearing both the sides, we find that amongst other grounds on merits, the assessee has raised a ground of not being given an opportunity of hearing as per law. The ld. AR has pointed out that in response to the notices issued, the assessee had sought adjournment for filing the evidences but was not ITAs No.1648 to 1655/Del/2025 accomodated. Although the ld. DR has vehemently defended the impugned order submitting that due notices were issued, we observe that the ld.CIT(A) observes in the order that nobody appeared in response to the notices while, admittedly, the assessee had filed adjournment application and sought opportunity for filing the evidences. Then without any reasonable cause being cited to proceed to decide the appeal, exparte, the impugned order was passed.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →