DCIT CIRCLE 16 1, NEW DELHI vs. MAA KARNI INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED, RAJASTHAN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 9114/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 July 2026AY 2023-243 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer should have been given an opportunity to rebut the factual aspects raised by the CIT(A) before the assessment order was quashed. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The revenue appealed against the NFAC's order which quashed the assessment order. The NFAC had quashed the assessment order primarily because the assessee was not granted a personal hearing, only video conferencing was provided.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessment order was rightly quashed by the CIT(A) without providing the Assessing Officer an opportunity to rebut factual findings. The adequacy of the hearing provided to the assessee was also a consideration.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 144B,Section 143(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, DELHI

Before: SHRI M BALAGANESH & SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA

For Respondent: Ms. Suman Malik, CIT, DR
Hearing: 27.04.2026Pronounced: 10.07.2026

PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:

This appeal is preferred by the revenue against the order dated 28.11.2025 of the Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi

P a g e | 2 ITA No.9114/Del/2025 Maa Karni Infratech Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2023-24) (hereinafter referred as Ld. First Appellate Authority or in short Ld. ‘FAA’) in DIN & Order No: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1083135002(1) arising out of the assessment order dated 22.03.2025 u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) passed by Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, for AY: 2023-24.

2.

At the time of hearing none appeared for the assesse while notices have been issued repeatedly. We have heard ld. DR and after going through the impugned order we find that ld. CIT(A) has quashed the assessment order on the basis that opportunity of personal hearing was not granted to assesse and only hearing through video conferencing was provided. There are also observation that notice u/s 143(2) was issued by non-jurisdictional officer, however for these aspects assessing officer was not confronted and these issues are not pure questions of law but mixed question of law and fact, for which assessing officer should have been given an opportunity to rebut the factual aspect raised.

3.

Therefore, the appeal of department is allowed for statistical purposes and the issue on merits, as well as issue of law are restored to the files of ld. CIT(A) to proceed to adjudicate the grounds fresh, while following aforesaid observation of this Bench.

P a g e | 3 ITA No.9114/Del/2025 Maa Karni Infratech Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2023-24)

Order pronounced in the open court on 10.07.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (M Balaganesh) (Anubhav Sharma) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dated 10.07.2026 Rohit, 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 144B

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →