BALESHVER,GHAZIABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GHAZIABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6469/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 September 2026AY 2016-20174 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remitted the matters back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal cautioned that if the assessee fails to pursue the matters diligently, the CIT(A) can take an adverse view.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to respond to notices and opportunities for hearing before the AO and CIT(A), leading to ex parte orders. The assessee attributed this to a communication gap with their tax consultant.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex parte orders passed by the lower authorities were justified, and whether principles of natural justice were violated.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Gupta, CA
For Respondent: Shri Novel Roy, Sr. DR
Hearing: 07.09.2026

ITA Nos.6469 & 6470/DEL/2026 BALESHVER IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.6469/DEL/2026 Assessment Year: 2016-17 BALESHVER, Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, C/o Sanjeev Anand & Associates, Income Tax Office, 136, Navyug Market, Ward 2(1)(1), Hapur, Chungi, Ghaziabad 201001, Uttar Pradesh. Ghaziabad 201002, PAN No. CEBPB7282L Uttar Pradesh. Appellant Respondent & ITA No.6470/DEL/2026 Assessment Year: 2016-17 BALESHVER, Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, C/o Sanjeev Anand & Associates, Income Tax Office, 136, Navyug Market, Ward 2(1)(1), Hapur, Chungi, Ghaziabad 201001, Uttar Pradesh. Ghaziabad 201002, PAN No. CEBPB7282L Uttar Pradesh. Appellant Respondent Assessee by Shri Sumit Gupta, CA Revenue by Shri Novel Roy, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 07.09.2026 Pronouncement on 07.09.2026 O R D E R PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. These are a batch of two appeals pertaining to the same assessee. While ITA 6469 pertains to the quantum matter; ITA 6470 pertains to a penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”) on the quantum.

ITA Nos.6469 & 6470/DEL/2026 BALESHVER 1.1 ITA 6469 arises from order dated 14.05.2026, passed u/s 250 of the Act by NFAC. ITA 6470 arises from order dated 20.05.2026, passed u/s 250 of the Act by NFAC.

1.2 It is seen that during re-assessment proceedings the assessee did not respond to any of the notices providing opportunity of being heard, leading to an ex parte order. Even the penalty matter was dealt with in an ex parte manner by the Ld. AO.

1.3 It is seen that even before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee did not substantively respond to the opportunities given for hearing. For both the appeals this situation is seen to prevail and the Ld. CIT(A) is seen to have dismissed both the appeals by upholding the action of Ld. AO.

1.4 The aggrieved assessee has approached the ITAT with grounds challenging the impugned actions on merit as well as raising grounds of denial of the principles of natural justice.

2.

Before us the Ld. AR stated that due to a communication gap between the assessee and his tax consultant the assessee could not effectively comply before either of the authorities below. The Ld. AR assured that in case the matter was to be remanded back to the Ld. AO then the assessee would cooperate in the proceedings, to the best of his ability.

ITA Nos.6469 & 6470/DEL/2026 BALESHVER 2.1 The Ld. DR did not have any objection in case the matters were to be remanded back.

3.

We have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the records before us. We find that the assessee has been found lacking in pursuing his matters before the authorities below. However, in the interest of substantive justice, we deem it fit to set aside the impugned orders in both the cases and remit the same back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. We may add that in case the assessee is not found to be serious in pursuing his matters before the Ld. CIT(A), then the Ld. CIT(A) would be at liberty to take an adverse view in the two matters.

4.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 07.09.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) (SANJAY AWASTHI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated:16.09.2026 *Kavita Arora, Sr. P.S.

ITA Nos.6469 & 6470/DEL/2026 BALESHVER Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →