BALWAN VATS,GURUGRAM vs. ITO WARD 1(3) , GURUGRAM
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities, the Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. AO, in the interest of substantial justice. The matter was restored to the Ld. AO for a fresh decision.
What were the facts?
The assessee failed to file a return of income for AY 2015-16. Proceedings under Section 147 were initiated due to undisclosed deposits and receipts. The assessee also failed to respond to notices and appear before the authorities.
What were the issues?
Whether the ex-parte orders passed by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) were justified, given the assessee's claim of lack of communication with the representative.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 147,Section 144,Section 194C,Section 148A,Section 148,Section 142(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “A”: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA & SHRI VIMAL KUMAR
PER VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
The appeal filed by the appellant/assessee is against order dated 19.01.2024 of the Learned Commissioner of Income- Tax(Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred as ‘Ld. CIT(A)’) arising out of assessment order dated 21.03.2023 by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Gurugram (hereinafter referred as “Ld. AO”) under Section 147 read with section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as “the Act”) for assessment year 2015-16.
Brief facts of the case are appellant/assessee did not file return of income for the year under consideration. As per information available with the department, assessee deposited cash of Rs.61,25,000/- in saving bank account maintained with AXIS Bank and received payment to consider under Section 194C of the Act amounting to Rs.1,30,35,750/- and received fees for professional or technical services amounting to Rs.1,08,480/- from Abeer Media Pvt. Ltd. during the financial year 2014-15 relevant to assessment year 2015-16. Proceedings under Section 148(A) of the Act were initiated and concluded by passing an order under Section 148A(d) of the Act, dated 30.03.2022 with prior approval of specified authority. Notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 30.03.2022. The assessee failed to file return of income in response to notice under Section 148 of the Act. Notices under Section 142(1) of the Act dated 09.12.2022, 28.12.2055, 18.01.2023 and 25.01.2023 were issued but assessee failed to reply. On completion of assessment proceedings, Ld. AO made additions vide order dated 21.03.2023 of Rs.95,17,017/-.
Against order dated 21.03.2023 of Ld. AO, appellant/assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) which was dismissed vide order dated 19.01.2024.
Being aggrieved, the appellant/assessee filed present appeal.
Learned Authorised Representative for the appellant/assessee submitted that appellant/assessee could not appear during assessment proceedings and appellate proceedings due to lack of communication with the Learned Authorised Representative. Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal since appellant failed to give cogent evidence regarding nature of business activities in support of ground of appeal.
6. Learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue, submitted that appellant/assessee failed to appear before the departmental authorities despite repeated notices.
From examination of record in the light of light of aforesaid rival contentions, it is crystal clear that Ld. CIT(A) through order dated 19.01.2024 dismissed the appeal since appellant/assessee failed to submit any cogent evidence in respect of business activities to substantiate grounds of appeal despite several opportunities. Ld. AO had passed ex parte order dated 21.03.2023.
8. Appellant/assessee has claimed that due to lack of communication with Learned Authorised Representative, he could not present his case before the departmental authorities.
9. In view of above material facts, in the interest of substantial justice, the impugned orders dated 19.01.2024 of Ld. CIT(A) and 21.03.2023 of Ld. AO are set aside. The matter is restored to the file of Ld. AO for fresh decision in accordance with law.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
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 Barnala Steel Industries Private Limited vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Skd Suppliers Private Limited vs. The Superintendent, Central CGST, Rishra Division, Range-Ii, And AnrCalcutta · 22 Oct 2026
- 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
