KUNAL ARORA,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (ACIT), DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The tribunal held that the NFAC dismissed the appeal ex-parte without providing an adequate opportunity to be heard, which is contrary to the provisions of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the case was restored to the NFAC for a decision on merits.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed a return of income, and later a revised return under section 148 after a notice was issued. The Assessing Officer made additions of Rs. 15,36,388/-, and the appeal before the NFAC was dismissed without a proper hearing.
What were the issues?
Whether the NFAC erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without providing an adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “B”, DELHI
Before: SH. M. BALAGANESH & SH. SUDHIR KUMAR
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”, DELHI
BEFORE SH. M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA No.169/DEL/2026 Assessment Year2016-17 Kunal Arora Vs. Assistant Commissioner of C-48, Shubham Enclave Income Tax, Paschim Vihar, Jawala Heri DEL-W-(56)(92), Income West Delhi-110063 Tax Department, New Delhi PAN No.AGMPA7244G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)
Appellant by None Respondent by Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta Sr. DR
Date of hearing: 22/07/2026 Date of Pronouncement: 12/08/2026 ORDER PER SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This is appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 12-11-2025 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “Ld. NFAC”] relevant to assessment year 2016-17.
The assessee has raised the ground no.4 in which he stated that adequate opportunity was not provided to the appellant. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed the return of income for the relevant A. Y.2016-17 on 02-111-2026 declaring total income of Rs.3,58,480/- under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in Short “the Act”). In the compliance of the notice under section 148 of the Act the assessee filed the return of income at 9,95,000/- and paid the additional tax of Rs.2,64,710/-. The Assessing officer completed the assessment orders after making the additions of Rs.15,36,388/-. Aggrieved the order of the Assessing Officer the assessee filed the appeal before the Ld. NFAC, who dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Being aggrieved the order of the Ld. NFAC the assessee is in appeal before the tribunal. 4. We have heard both parties and gone through the material available on record. 5. In the ground of appeal, the assessee stated that appeal was dismissed ex-parte without giving the opportunity of being head to the assessee. We have heard the Ld. Sr. DR and perused the material available on record. The Ld. NFAC has not decided the appeal on merits which he was supposed to as per the provisions of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) which reads as under; “The order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) or as case may be the Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for
determination the decision thereon and the reason for the decision.”
Since, the Ld. NFAC dismissed the appeal exparte without being heard to the assessee, therefore, the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem fit it proper to restore the issue to the files of the Ld. NFAC with a direction to decide the appeal on merit to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its claim and decide the issue as per fact and law and pass a speaking order on merit. The assessee is also directed to appear before the NFAC and substantiate its case without seeking any adjournment. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 12.08.2026.
Sd/- Sd/-
(M. BALAGANESH) (SUDHIR KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Date: 12.08.2026 S.R. BHATNAGAR Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) ` 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT DELHI
More judgments on Section 139(1)
- Ashok Singh, Jaipur vs ACIT, Circle-2 Jaipur, JaipurITA 1540/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Haresh Sharma, Ahmedabad vs ITO, Ward 5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2125/AHD/2026[2019-2020]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-2020
- Nitinbhai Nanalal Badani, Rajkot vs CIT (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal…ITA 658/RJT/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Nitinbhai Nanalal Badani, Rajkot vs CIT(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal…ITA 485/RJT/2025[2022-23]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Mata Lachmi Rotary Charitable Society… vs Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward - 1…ITA 310/RJT/2025[2022-23]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sukant Kumar vs. Union Of INDIA And 6 OthersAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S New Sana Brick Field vs. Union Of INDIA And 4 OthersAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Vinay Singh vs. Union Of INDIAAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Aaradhyam Infrabuilders PVT LTD vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026