KULDEEP KUMAR,SOUTH DELHI vs. WARD 28(5), DELHI, INCOME TAX OFFICE

ITA 3448/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 August 2026AY 2015-164 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What were the facts?

The assessee sold an immovable property and received interest income but did not file a return of income. The Assessing Officer (AO) made additions treating the entire sale consideration as short-term capital gain and adding back the interest income. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the assessee's appeal.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order due to the assessee's lack of response. In the interest of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to provide three effective opportunities to the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether the reassessment proceedings were validly initiated and whether the additions made by the AO were justified, considering the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 148,Section 149,Section 151,Section 139(1),Section 194IA,Section 234B,Section 271(1)(c),Section 271(1)(b),Section 271(F)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI

For Appellant: Shri Prem Lamba, C.A
For Respondent: Shri Balkishan Gopal, Sr. D.R
Hearing: 04.08.2026Pronounced: 04.08.2026

PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

This captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [‘CIT(A)’ in short] dated 09.10.2025 arising from the assessment order of Assessment Unit, Income Tаx Department passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 read with section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) dated 01.03.2023, for the Assessment Year 2015-16. [A.Y 2015-16] Kuldeep Kumar vs. Ward – 28(5)

2.

The grounds raised by the assessee are as under : 1. “On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the AO in issuing notice u/s 148 and assumption of juri iction u/s 144B in absence of condition precedent for

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 147

All 48,773 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →