P.P. JEWELLERS EXPORTS,DELHI vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1810/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 June 2025AY 2013-14Bench: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee needs an opportunity to contest the case on merits before the CIT(A). Therefore, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside with a cost of Rs. 10,000/- to be deposited by the assessee, and the issues were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee preferred an appeal against the order of the CIT(A). Despite multiple notices, the assessee failed to appear before the CIT(A) and also failed to file submissions and evidences. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had raised grounds on merits in the past.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee should be granted an opportunity to present their case on merits before the CIT(A) despite non-appearance and failure to file submissions/evidences?

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 Respondent: Shri Narpat Singh, Sr. DR
Hearing: 24.06.2025Pronounced: 24.06.2025

Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s P.P. Jewellers Exports, Vs ACIT, 2681-83A, Gali No.2, Central Circle-25, Beadonpura, New Delhi. Karol Bagh, New Delhi – 110 005. PAN: AAEFP1647G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Narpat Singh, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 24.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 24.06.2025 ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:

This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 15.01.2025 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-29, Delhi.

2.

None has appeared for the assessee at the time of hearing though an adjournment request has been received and filed before us. On going through the record, we find that the assessee has raised grounds on merits, however, the assessee had failed to represent its case before the CIT(A). The ld. DR has although defended the order of the CIT(A), submitted that numerous notices

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →