NEERAJ KUMAR,SANGAM VIHAR vs. AO, WARD 29(1), RANGE 52, CIVIC CENTRE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5791/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 September 2026AY 2018-193 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the orders were passed ex parte and that the assessee was denied an opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals were against penalty orders passed ex parte by the NFAC for AY 2018-19. The assessee's tax consultant failed to respond to notices from the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether penalty orders passed ex parte without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee are valid. Whether the assessee deserves a fresh opportunity to present their case on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271A,Section 271B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “E” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI VIMAL KUMAR & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI

For Respondent: Shri Tarun Sharda, Sr. DR
Hearing: 17.09.2026

PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. This is a batch of two appeals pertaining to the same assessee for AY 2018-19. ITA 5791 pertains to a penalty u/s 271A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”) and ITA 5792 pertains to a penalty u/s 271B of the Act.

ITA Nos.5791 & 5792/DEL/2026 NEERAJ KUMAR 1.1 ITA 5791 arises from order dated 26.03.2026, passed u/s 250 of the Act by NFAC. ITA 5792 arises from order dated 26.03.2026, passed u/s 250 of the Act by NFAC.

1.2 Both the penalty orders have been passed in an ex parte manner since the assessee did not respond to the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A), from time to time.

1.3 The aggrieved assessee has approached the ITAT challenging the penalties levied on merits as also raising the ground of denial of opportunity.

2.

On the last date of hearing, the Ld.AR stated that both the impugned orders were passed in an ex parte manner since the tax consultant of the assessee was not alert enough to respond to the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A). It was a prayer that the assessee deserves relief on merits and for that purpose a proper opportunity of being heard was needed to be provided.

2.1 The Ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below and stated that there would be no objection in case the matter was to be remanded back for fresh consideration.

3.

We have perused the documents before us and have heard both the sides. It is seen that both the impugned orders are ex parte in nature and considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, we deem

ITA Nos.5791 & 5792/DEL/2026 NEERAJ KUMAR it fit to set aside the impugned orders and remit both of them back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee would be expected to be vigilant about the opportunities provided by the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A) would consider the submissions of the assessee and pass a speaking order.

4.

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 17.09.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (VIMAL KUMAR) (SANJAY AWASTHI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 18.09.2026 *Kavita Arora, Sr. P.S. Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI

More judgments on Section 271A

All 701 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →