SPICETECH SYSTEM PVT. LTD. ,DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 22 (2), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1829/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 July 2026AY 2023-243 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given an opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A). In the interest of justice, the impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for proper consideration.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex parte as infructuous, with the CIT(A) believing a rectification order had settled the grievance. The assessee contended they were not given an opportunity to present their case and that their grievance was not settled.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex parte order without providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard, and whether the assessee's grievance was indeed settled.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 154,Section 250,Section 43B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Sigh, FCA & Shri Sandeep Yadav, Adv
For Respondent: Shri Balkrishan Gopal, Sr. DR
Hearing: 14.07.2026

ITA No.1829/DEL/2026 SPICETECH SYSTEM PVT. LTD. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1829/DEL/2026 Assessment Year: 2023-24 SPICETECH SYSTEM PVT. LTD., Vs. DCIT, B-1, Kalini Colony, Circle 22(2), New Delhi, Delhi 110065. New Delhi. PAN No. ABECS8857K Appellant Respondent Assessee by Shri Tarandeep Sigh, FCA & Shri Sandeep Yadav, Adv Revenue by Shri Balkrishan Gopal, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 14.07.2026 Pronouncement on 17.07.2026 O R D E R PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. This appeal arises from order dated 17.12.2025, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”), by Ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals)-2, Jaipur.

1.1 It is seen that the assessee preferred an appeal against an order u/s 143(1) of the Act, but has suffered an ex parte order by the Ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals), who has dismissed the assessee’s appeal as infructuous on the ground that the JAO has allegedly settled the grievance of the assessee through a rectification order u/s 154 of the Act, dated 11.08.2025.

ITA No.1829/DEL/2026 SPICETECH SYSTEM PVT. LTD. 1.2 However, the assessee is still aggrieved and has approached the ITAT with the following grounds: -

1.

“That on the facts and in law the impugned order dated 17.12.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”] is bad in law and void ab initio to the extend it is prejudicial to the interest of the appellant. 2. That on the facts and in law the CIT(A) has erred in passing the impugned order ex parte i.e. by violating principles of natural justice. 3. That on facts and in law the CIT(A) has in upholding disallowance u/s 43B of the Act of Rs.4,67,18,788/- allegedly pertaining to unpaid GST. 4. That on facts and in law to the CIT(A) has erred in upholding the order dated 3rd May, 2024 passed by the Assessing Officer [herein above referred to as “AO”] u/s 143(1) of the Act partly and not allowing complete relief as claimed. 5. That on facts and in law the order passed by the AO is void ab initio and bad in law. That the appellant prays for leave to add, alter, amend and/or vary the ground(s) of appeal at or before the time of hearing.” 2. Before us the Ld. AR stated that since they were not able to make a presentation of facts before the Ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals), hence, there is a finding that the grievance is settled, even when it is not. The Ld. AR submitted that they are praying for an opportunity to present the facts before the Ld. First Appellate Authority so that relief, as due to the assessee, could be considered for grant as per law.

2.1 The Ld. DR relied on the First Appellate Order.

ITA No.1829/DEL/2026 SPICETECH SYSTEM PVT. LTD. 3. We have considered the facts of the case and have heard the Ld. AR/DR. It is felt that in the interest of justice, the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the matter deserves to be remanded back to the file of Ld. First Appellate Authority so that the assessee’s contentions are duly considered for considering relief as per law. Accordingly, this matter is remitted back to the file of Ld. First Appellate Authority.

4.

In the result, appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 17.07.2026 Sd/- Sd/- (ANUBHAV SHARMA) (SANJAY AWASTHI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 17.07.2026 *Kavita Arora, Sr. P.S. Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI

More judgments on Section 154

All 8,676 judgments and leading authorities on Section 154 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →