DIVEY DIPTI CHOPRA,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-11(1), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5442/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2025AY 2011-12Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)4 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the appeals back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication. The assessee was given three opportunities to plead and prove their case at their own risk.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals for assessment years 2011-12 & 2012-13 were filed against the CIT(A)/NFAC's orders. The CIT(A)/NFAC had rejected the assessee's appeal for non-payment of admitted advance tax without prior notice or opportunity.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A)/NFAC was justified in rejecting the appeal for non-payment of advance tax without providing an opportunity to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 144,Section 249(4)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘B’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

Hearing: 27.05.2025Pronounced: 27.05.2025

ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM These assessee’s twin appeals & 5443/Del/2024 for assessment years 2011-12 & 2012-13, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s orders, both dated 27.09.2024 having DINs and orders no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1069184649(1) and ITBA/NFAC/S /250/2024-25/1069184520(1) involving proceedings under sections 143(3) r.w.s. 147 and 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), respectively.

2.

Cases called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. She is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

3.

It next emerges during the course of hearing with the able assistance coming from the Revenue side that the CIT(A)/NFAC has invoked section 249(4)(b) of the Act for rejecting the assessee’s lower appeal in limine for want of a payment of his admitted advance tax.

4.

Learned departmental representative could hardly dispute that there is no indication in the CIT(A)/NFAC’s order quantifying the assessee’s liability of advance tax or any prior notice or opportunity granted to him to this clinching effect.

5.

Faced with this situation, we deem it appropriate to restore the assessee’s instant twin appeals back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for it’s afresh appropriate adjudication, within three effective opportunities subject to a rider that the taxpayer shall plead and prove the case at his own risk and responsibility, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →