BHARATH SINGH,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), GURGAON

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2538/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 July 2026AY 2023-245 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the impugned order was passed without granting an effective opportunity of hearing and without following the principles of natural justice, as there was no material to show service of notices. Therefore, the order was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed ex-parte by the CIT(A) for non-prosecution and on merits. The assessee claimed that notices were not received, and thus no effective opportunity of hearing was provided.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) is valid when there is no proof of service of notices and whether the principles of natural justice were followed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 143(3),Section 144B,Section 23(1)(a),Section 246A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Raj Kumar Chauhan

Hearing: 14.07.2026Pronounced: 14.07.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman, Accountant Member & Sh. Raj Kumar Chauhan, Judicial Member ITA No. 2538/Del/2026 : Asstt. Year: 2023-24 Bharath Singh, Vs DCIT, 14, Bougan Villae Marg, DLF-II, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon, Haryana-122002 Gurgaon, Haryana-122001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AJGPS1714A Assessee by : Sh. Saket Singh, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Raghubir Singh, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 14.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 14.07.2026 ORDER Per Raj Kumar Chauhan, Judicial Member: The appeal of the assessee is directed against the order dated 10.10.2025 of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) wherein the appeal was dismissed ex-parte for non-prosecution as well as on merits.

2.

Delay of 69 days in filing of the instant appeal is condoned in the larger interest of justice in light of Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).

3.

We have heard the ld. AR and the ld. DR. The ld. AR at the very outset would submit that impugned order had been passed without giving effective opportunity of hearing and the notice

2 ITA No. 2538/Del/2026 Bharath Singh allegedly issued on 23.06.2025, 15.07.2025 and 28.08.2025 were never received or served upon the assessee. It is therefore prayed that the matter may be remitted back to the ld. CIT(A) for deciding the same afresh after giving effective opportunity of hearing.

4.

The ld. DR on the other hand would submit that the assessee failed to respond to the various notices issued u/s 250 of the Act and has suffered ex-parte order deliberately, and as such prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

5.

We have considered the rival submissions and examined the record. The finding and the decision of the ld. CIT(A) as contained in para 4 & 5 would show that the impugned order has been passed without granting effective opportunity of hearing and the same is extracted below as under: “4 Findings and discussion The appeal filed by the assessee has been carefully examined along with the assessment records, but despite repeated statutory opportunities provided through notices dated 23.06.2025, 15.07.2025, and 28.08.2025 issued under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the appellant failed to submit any written submission, explanation, or evidence before this office. All communications were duly delivered on the registered e- filing portal and the email address provided in Form 35, yet there has been complete non-compliance and no request for adjournment or hearing. Hence, the appeal is decided ex parte on the basis of available records. The assessment order dated 10.03.2025 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B reveals that the Assessing Officer had made additions aggregating to Rs.22,49,464/- under the head Income from House Property on account of understatement of rental income in respect of three

3 ITA No. 2538/Del/2026 Bharath Singh immovable properties at Gurgaon by determining the reasonable annual lettable value as per section 23(1)(a) of the Act. The Assessing Officer has supported such determination with reference to comparable rent data and objective reasoning, which the appellant has not rebutted by furnishing any documentary proof such as contemporaneous lease deeds, market-rent evidence, or bank records either during assessment or appellate proceedings. Therefore, the findings of the Assessing Officer remain uncontroverted and justified in law. Adequate and repeated opportunities having been granted, the failure of the appellant to respond amounts to non-prosecution. Relying on the principles laid down in CIT v. Multiplan (India) Pvt. Ltd. (38 ITD 320 Del) and CIT v. Ratlam Coal Ash Co. (171 ITR 141 MP), the appeal is liable to be dismissed for want of prosecution and on merits. Accordingly, the additions of Rs.22,49,464/- made by the Assessing Officer are confirmed in full and the appeal stands dismissed both for non-compliance and on merits under section 250(6) r.w.s. 246A of the Income- tax Act, 1961. 5. Decision In view of the facts discussed above and considering that the appellant has failed to avail repeated opportunities of hearing or to furnish any submission or evidence in support of the grounds of appeal, the matter is decided ex parte on the basis of material available on record. The Assessing Officer has made reasoned additions of Rs.22,49,464/- under the head Income from House Property after determining the Annual Lettable Value in accordance with section 23(1)(a) of the Act, and such findings remain unchallenged and un-rebutted at the appellate stage. Hence, there is no justification for interference. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for non- prosecution and on merits, and the additions made by the Assessing Officer are confirmed in full.” 6. From the above extract of the impugned order, it is evident that there is no material/evidence to show that the notices allegedly issued has been either received for served upon the assessee. In the absence of any material/evidence regarding service of notice or receiving of notice, it cannot be

4 ITA No. 2538/Del/2026 Bharath Singh said that opportunities of hearing given to the assessee in this case.

7.

Section 250(2)(a) lays down as under: “250(2) The following shall have the right to be heard at the hearing of the appeal- (a) the appellant, either in person or by an authorized representative;” 8. Thus, the hearing mandated by Section 250(2)(a) of the Act is not a mere formality but a mandatory statutory requirement for following the principle of natural justice by the quasi-judicial authority.

9.

In view of the above facts and circumstances, it is evident that the impugned order has been passed without effective hearing and principle of natural justice has not been followed For these reasons, the impugned order is not maintainable and accordingly set aside. The end of justice shall be met in case the matter is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the issue afresh by affording an effective opportunity of hearing and considering the submissions to be made by the appellant/assessee. The assessee/appellant is also directed to make the necessary submissions/ detailed material before the Ld. CIT(A) within the period of 60 days of this order.

5 ITA No. 2538/Del/2026 Bharath Singh 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 14/07/2026. Sd/- Sd/- (S. Rifaur Rahman) (Raj Kumar Chauhan) Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 14/07/2026 *Subodh Kumar, Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

More judgments on Section 144B

All 10,521 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →