CONTINENTAL CONSTRUCTION LTD,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 6(1), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 8691/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 July 2026AY 2013-145 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the AO's order was ex-parte and the CIT(A) had confirmed it without considering the assessee's submissions. To ensure natural justice, the case was remanded back to the AO for a fresh assessment.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was against an ex-parte order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 147 read with Section 144, which was upheld by the CIT(A). The assessee had claimed expenses for office maintenance and legal cases, which were not considered.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte assessment order passed by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was sustainable, and whether the assessee was denied natural justice by not being given an adequate opportunity to present its case and expenses.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 234B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SH. SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI KRIWANT SAHAY

Hearing: 09.07.2026Pronounced: 09.07.2026

PER KRINWANT SAHAY A.M.

Appeal in this case has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 04.07.2024 passed by the NFAC, Delhi for the A.Y. 2013-14. Grounds of appeal are as under :- 1. The Ld. Commissioner Appeals erred in upholding the exparte order passed by the assessing officer under section 147 read with section 144 of the Act

2.

The Ld. commissioner erred in not considering the appellant’s claim of expenses incurred for maintaining office, fighting legal cases and other related expense incurred by the appellant to the tune of Rs.126394812 as they have to be incurred irrespective of the fact whether there is income from operations or not. 3. The Ld. Commissioner of Income tax erred in sustaining the assessment or income of Rs.60838023 on the basis of 26AS and not considering the genuine expenses incurred by the appellant. 4. The Ld commissioner of appeals erred in dismissing the appellant's contention regarding charge of interest u/s 234B 5. The above grounds are independent and without prejudice to each other.

2.

The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay which is reproduced as under :-

3.

Having considered the issues brought in the application for condonation of delay. We are inclined to condone the delay. Ld. DR did not object on this issue.

4.

At the very outset the Ld. Counsel for the assessee brought it to the notice of the Bench that the order passed by the AO in this case is u/s.144 i.e. exparte r.w.s. 147 of the Act and the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the exparte order passed by the ld. AO. Accordingly, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed before the Bench that in order to have natural justice to the assessee the matter may be remanded back to the file of the AO.

5.

Per contra the Ld. DR relied and supported the orders of the authorities below.

6.

We have considered the findings given by the AO in the assessment order passed exparte u/s.147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act. We have also considered the appellate order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). We find that the order passed by the AO in this case is an exparte order and the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed all the additions made by the AO in his assessment order passed u/s.144 of the Act. Keeping in view the element of natural justice to the assessee we are inclined to remand this case back to the file of the AO for passing denovo order after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee as required by law.

7.

The assessee is also directed to comply notices and queries of the AO and file all required documents and submissions in order to help in finalizing the assessment order. Accordingly, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 09.07.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [SATBEER SINGH GODARA] [KRINWANT SAHAY] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANTMEMBER Dated: 09.07.2026 NEHA , Sr.P.S.* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. PCIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →