DAV LOGISTICS P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-7(2), NEW DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with one final opportunity to present its case. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the matter on merits after hearing the assessee.
What were the facts?
The assessee company failed to file its return of income for AY 2010-11. The AO reopened the assessment and completed it ex-parte after notices were returned unserved. The CIT(A) also dismissed the appeal ex-parte.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without granting an opportunity to the assessee to present its case.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH, ‘B’: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI R. K. PANDA & SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA
ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM, This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 28.09.2018 of the learned CIT(A)-3, New Delhi, relating to AY 2010-11.
The assessee in the grounds of appeal has challenged the ex-parte order of the Ld. CIT(A) in dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution and thereby sustaining the various additions made by the AO.
None appeared on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing. The notices sent through registry were also returned back unserved by the postal authorities. Therefore, we deem it proper to decide the issue on the basis of material available on record and after hearing the ld. DR.
Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a company and had not filed its return of income for the impugned assessment year. An amount of Rs.19,87,087/- was credited to the assessee u/s 194C and 194 I of the Act during the F.Y. 2009-10 relevant to AY 2010-11 as per information available on ITD system.
The AO therefore after recording reasons, reopened the assessment u/s 147 of the Act. Thereafter, notice u/s 148 was issued. The assessee did not file any return in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act. The notices were received back undelivered with the postal remark, ‘no such firm’, for which the notices were served through affixture. The AO, thereafter completed the assessment u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.11,06,410/-.
In appeal, the ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of the AO.
Aggrieved with such order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
We have heard the ld. DR and perused the record. It is an admitted fact that due to non filing of return either u/s 139(1) or in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act, the AO completed the assessment u/s 144/147 of the Act determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.11,06,410/-, wherein, he made addition ofRs.2,82,963/-, 4,26,031/- and Rs.3,97,416/- respectively u/s 68 of the Act. We find due to non-appearance of the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A), the ld. CIT(A) decided the appeal ex-parte and sustained the additions made by the AO. After considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case and decide the issue as per fact and law. The assessee is also hereby directed to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) and substantiate its case without seeking any adjournment under any pretext, failing which the ld. CIT(A) is at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
The Order was pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing itself i.e. on 27.04.2022.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Aasha Industries vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Bharat Iron Scrap vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Fasil Hussain Shah vs. Ut Of J And K Th Commissioner Secretary TO Government Finance Department And OthersJammu and Kashmir and Ladakh · 21 Oct 2026
