What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given another opportunity to be heard on merits because the hearing notices were sent to an incorrect email address. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.

The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) due to non-compliance and failure to submit evidence, despite the assessment order being passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144. The assessee claimed hearing notices were sent to a wrong email ID.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without adjudicating on merits due to alleged non-compliance, when the assessee claimed non-receipt of notices.

Kiwi Alloys Ltd vs ITO | ITAT Delhi 2026

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

Before: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN & SHRI VIMAL KUMAR

For Appellant: Shri Sourav Rohtagi, CA, Ms. Sangeeta Gulati, Advocate

For Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Hearing: 10.08.2026Pronounced: 09.09.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.4044/DEL/2026 (Assessment Year: 2022-23) Kiwi Alloys Limited, vs. ITO, Ward - 14 (3), QD-42, Pitampura, New Delhi. Delhi - 110 034. (PAN : AAECK1736E) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Sourav Rohtagi, CA Ms. Sangeeta Gulati, Advocate REVENUE BY : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 10.08.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 09.09.2026 O R D E R PER S.RIFAUR RAHMAN,AM: 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [for short ‘ld. CIT (A)] dated 24.07.2025 for the Assessment Year 2022-23.

At the time of hearing, ld. AR for the assessee submitted that the ld. CIT (A) dismissed the appeal on the ground that assessee has been provided sufficient opportunities but assessee failed to submit any submission or

2 ITA No.4044/Del/2026

evidence during appellant proceedings in support of grounds of appeal as well as statement of facts and remained completely non-compliant and non-responsive. He further submitted that the ld. CIT (A) had not adjudicated the issues on its merits. He submitted that ld. CIT (A) ought to have dealt with the grounds of appeal substantively. He submitted that there are reasons for assessee for not appearing before the first appellate authority was, the hearing notices were sent to wrong email id even though the right email id was mentioned in the Form 35, the same was sent to wrong email id. Further, he submitted that the AO passed the assessment order under section 143(3) read with section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). Accordingly, he prayed that this issue may be remitted back to ld. CIT(A) with the prayer to give an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

On the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue objected to the submissions of the ld. counsel for the assessee and submitted that assessee has not utilized several opportunities granted by ld. CIT (A).

Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We observed that the addition was sustained by the ld. CIT (A) relying on the order of the Assessing Officer. In our considered view, the hearing notices were sent to wrong email id and, therefore, assessee should be given one more opportunity of being heard on merit. Therefore, we

3 ITA No.4044/Del/2026

restore the matter back to the file of ld. CIT (A) and direct ld. CIT (A) to give an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issue on merit as per law. We also direct assessee through his counsel to make proper submissions and appear before the ld. CIT (A) on the date of hearing and cooperate with the tax authorities. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on this 9th day of September, 2026.

Sd/- sd/- (VIMAL KUMAR) (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Dated: 09.09.2026 TS

KIWI ALLOYS LTD,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 14(3), DELHI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments