MAHADEV JINDAL,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 34(1), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2737/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 August 2026AY 2016-174 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without taking on record the assessee's submissions. To ensure natural justice, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee another opportunity.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order which dismissed the appeal in a summary manner. The CIT(A) had decided the case ex-parte as the assessee did not respond to notices.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal summarily without detailed reasons and without considering the grounds raised by the assessee, including the validity of the notice u/s 148 and reassessment proceedings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 143(2),Section 144B(1)(iii),Section 69C,Section 145

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SH. MAHAVIR SINGH & SH. KRINWANT SAHAY

Hearing: 04.08.2026Pronounced: 04.08.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘E’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

I.T A. No.2737/Del/2026 (A.Y 2016-17) Mahadev Jindal ACIT A-9017, Group Industrial Vs. Circle – 34 (1) Area, Wazirpur Delhi Delhi PAN No. AAIPJ3426H

Appellant by: None Respondent by : Sh. Tarun Sharda, Sr. DR

Date of Hearing 04.08.2026 Date of Pronouncement 04.08.2026

ORDER PER KRINWANT SAHAY AM

Appeal in this case has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 21.01.2026 passed by the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi for the A.Y. 2016-17. Grounds of appeal are as under :-

“1. That the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in dismissing assessee's appeal in a summary manner without giving detailed reasons for the said order on various grounds of appeal raised and further erred in not holding:-

1 | P a g e

(1) that the notice dated 31.03.2021 u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter "the Act") not being signed either manually or digitally by the concerned authority is an invalid one and any proceedings pursuant thereto need to quashed; (ii) without prejudice to the above, reassessment proceedings commenced and completed without issuing a notice u/s 143(2) of the Act is fatal to such proceeding which need to be quashed being contrary to be provision of section 144B(1)(iii) of the Act; 2. That the learned CIT (Appeal) erred in not holding that addition of Rs.1,11,39,745 u/s 69C of the Act could not be made in the hands. of the assessee as the Assessing Officer had not made any enquiry whatsoever to find out whether such expenditure had actually been incurred by the assessee as the Assessing Officer accepted the sales and purchases as per tax return filed and has not rejected the books of accounts u/s 145 of the Act. 3. That in the absence of any corroborative evidence the learned CIT (Appeals) erred in not holding that no sustainable addition of Rs.1,11,39,745 u/s 69C of Act could be made to the returned income based merely on the statement of M/s Radiant Cements Pvt. Ltd. without allowing assessee an opportunity to cross examine the person making such statement and further erred in not holding that the addition is not justified. 4. That the learned CIT (Appeals) erred in not holding that for the very same assessment year on the same factual and legal circumstances the AO in the case of the assessee could not take different stand, even if a "protective" one on the same issue and same set of facts over the AO, Nahan (H.P.)

2.

During proceedings before us it was brought to our notice that the ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal on the basis of material available on record as the assessee did not respond to any of the

2 | P a g e

notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) on the email address provided by the appellant in Form No.35. It was also noted by the Ld. CIT(A) that h notices were sent to the said address and they have been received by the assessee. Although the assessee vide letter dated 29.12.2025 sought adjournment but despite lapse of approximately 20 days no reply/ submission was filed. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) decided this issue exparte.

3.

During proceedings before us it was brought to our notice that the Ld. CIT(A) has decided the case exparte without taking on record any submission or reply of the assessee.

4.

We have considered the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) which has been passed exparte. In order to have natural justice to the assessee we are inclined to give one more opportunity to the assessee. The case is remanded back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to pass an adjudication order after giving adequate opportunity to the assessee of being heard. The assessee is also at liberty to file all the relevant required details and documents for the consideration of all the issue before the ld.CIT(A).

3 | P a g e

5.

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

Order pronounced in the open Court on 04.08.2026.

SD

Sd/- Sd/-

(MAHAVIR SINGH) (KRINWANT SAHAY) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBR Dated : 04/08/2026 *Neha Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to : 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT (Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI

4 | P a g e

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →