DEEPAK GARG,BHARATPUR vs. ITO, WARD-I, BHARATPUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not provided with an adequate opportunity of being heard by the CIT(A) as there was no proof of service of notices. Therefore, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed for want of prosecution. The assessee claimed his email was hacked, causing a delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT. The ITAT condoned the delay, finding a sufficient cause.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution without ensuring proper service of notices and providing an adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 148A,Section 148,Section 147,Section 144,Section 250,Section 132,Section 80GGC,Section 80C,Section 80CCD(1B),Section 80D
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR “A” BENCH, JAIPUR
Before: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA & SHRI KULDIP SINGH
PER : KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-
The Appellant, Deepak Garg (hereinafter referred to as the ‘assessee’) by filing the present appeal, sought to set aside the impugned order dated 18.07.2025 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ‘JIT(A)’] qua assessment year 2019-20 on the grounds inter-alia that:- “1. That, on the facts and in law, sustaining by the Id. CIT(A) of issuing of notice u/s. 148A(b) by the A.O. to the assessee,passing of order by the A.O. u/s. 148A(d) rejecting assessees reply to the notice u/s. 148A(b) and simultaneously issuing of notice by the A.O. u/s. 148 to the assessee asking
I.T.A No. 221/JPR/2026 Pag
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
More judgments on Section 148A
- Rajesh Kumar Khandelwal, Jaipur vs ITO Ward 5(1), JaipurITA 21/JPR/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
- Kamleshkumar Somalal Bhatt, Himatnagar vs Income Tax Ofifcer, Ward 1, HimatnagarITA 2130/AHD/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Haresh Sharma, Ahmedabad vs ITO, Ward 5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2124/AHD/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Shree Bandharda Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd… vs Income Tax Officer Ward -4, JunagadhITA 881/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Nitinbhai Nanalal Badani, Rajkot vs CIT (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal…ITA 658/RJT/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sanjay Maheshwari vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 14 Oct 2026
- Iyyanan Eswaran vs. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (St) (GST)Madras · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Dc Security Services vs. Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Shreekanth Enterprises vs. Joint Commissioner AppealsUttarakhand · 14 Oct 2026
- Sharad Ashok Agarwal vs. State Of Maharashtra Through G.P. And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026