MEENA JAIN,DELHI vs. WARD 36(1), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2045/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 June 2025AY 2018-2019Bench: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)4 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not served with notices of hearing and was not given adequate opportunity of hearing. Considering the circumstances, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored the appeals to the Ld. CIT(A) for decision on merits after providing a proper opportunity of hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Meena Jain, preferred these appeals against the orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The assessee claimed that she was not well-versed with computers, was unaware of any notices, and her spouse was continuously ill and passed away shortly before the impugned orders.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was provided with adequate opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned orders and whether the orders should be set aside on this ground.

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 Sameer Kumar, Proxy Counsel
For Respondent: Shri Narpat Singh, Sr. 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.2045 & 2046/Del/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2021-22 Meena Jain, Vs NFAU, 30, Ashoka Park Main, Ward-36(1), Delhi – 110 035. Delhi PAN: AJSPJ5590R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Sameer Kumar, Proxy Counsel Revenue by : Shri Narpat Singh, Sr. 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 13.01.2025 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC.

2.

An application for adjournment has been moved today, however, on perusal of the record and on hearing both the sides, we find that the assessee was not served with notices of hearing and a ground No.2 in that regard has been raised that the impugned orders are passed without giving due opportunity of hearing.

ITAs No.2045 & 2046/Del/2025

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →