BHISHAM SAINI,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 28(1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3972/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 August 2026AY 2017-184 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for a fresh decision. The tribunal emphasized the need for a fair opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal against the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order was dismissed by the ITAT. The CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeal without adjudicating on merits due to alleged non-prosecution.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without adjudicating on merits, violating principles of natural justice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 144,Section 143(2),Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR & SHRI VIMAL KUMAR

For Respondent: Shri Pramod Kumar, Sr. DR
Hearing: 24.06.2026Pronounced: 07.08.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 3972/Del/2026, A.Y. 2017-18 Bhisham Saini Vs. ITO 7JE Front Side, 3rd Floor Ward 28(1), Malviya Nagar, Delhi Khirki Extn., New Delhi 110017 Delhi �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: AKEPK4676Q Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : None Respondent by : Shri Pramod Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 24.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement 07.08.2026

O R D E R PER VIMAL KUMAR, JM: The appeal filed by the assessee is against order dated 13.02.2026 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “the CIT(A)”] under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) arising out of assessment order dated

P a g e | 2 ITA No. 3972/Del/2026 Bhisham Saini, Delhi

20.12.2019 of ld. Assessing Officer/ITO, Ward 28(1), New Delhi for A.Y. 2017- 18.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee e-filed return of income of Rs. 90,70,140/- on 06.11.2017. The case was selected for limited scrutiny for reasons: “(i) income from house property (ii) contract expenses”. Notice u/s 143(2) of the act dated 24.09.2018 was issued. Notices u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 05.04.2019, 02.09.2019, 12.09.2019 and 13.11.2019 were issued. The assessee filed details. On completion of proceedings, ld. AO vide order dated 20.12.2019 made additions of Rs. 99,99,532/- or Rs. 59,15,785/-.

2.1 Against order dated 20.12.2019 of Ld. AO, the appellant/assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A) which was dismissed vide order dated 13.02.2026.

3.

Being aggrieved, the appellant/assessee preferred present appeal on following grounds:

“1. That the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC dated 13.02.2026 is bad in law, arbitrary, unjust and against the facts and circumstances of the case and is liable to be quashed. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without adjudicating the grounds on merits, merely on the alleged non-prosecution, which is against the settled principles of law.

P a g e | 3 ITA No. 3972/Del/2026 Bhisham Saini, Delhi

3.

That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the assessment framed u/s 144, ignoring that the assessment itself is bad in law, illegal and void ab-initio. He has failed to appreciate that sufficient opportunity was not effectively provided, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO is not justified in making addition of Rs. 99,99,532/- under the head "Income from House Property" merely on the basis of Form 26AS and that too without establishing that such receipts pertain to house property income. The assessee does not own any let out property. Therefore, income from house property is Nil. 5. That the Ld. AO erred in making ad-hoc disallowance of Rs. 59,15,785/- purely on assumption, presumption and suspicion without pointing out any specific defect, deficiency or omission and without rejecting books of account. Hence, the said disallowance of contract expenses is illegal, excessive and without any basis, and deserves to be deleted. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, change, vary or substitute any of the aforesaid grounds or raise an additional ground if it becomes necessary to do so in interest of justice.” 4. At the time of hearing, non-appeared on behalf of the assessee.

5.

Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that Ld. CIT(A) passed ex parte order.

6.

From examination of record in light of the aforesaid rival contention, it is crystal clear that Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 13.02.2026 condoned delay of 70 days in filing appeal but dismissed the appeal as no response or request for adjournment was received from the appellant/assessee.

7.

In view of above material facts and in interest of justice, the impugned order dated 13.02.2026 of ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is restored to the file

P a g e | 4 ITA No. 3972/Del/2026 Bhisham Saini, Delhi

of Ld. CIT(A) for afresh decision in accordance with law after affording fair opportunity of hearing to the appellant/assessee.

8.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 07.08.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (RAMIT KOCHAR) (VIMAL KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated:07.08.2026 Binita, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI

More judgments on Section 142(1)

All 17,244 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →