AMIT KUMAR,MEERUT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(1)(1), MEERUT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4271/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 June 2026AY 2019-203 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the matter back to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment. The assessee was directed to respond to the notices issued by the AO, with liberty to the AO to take an adverse view if the assessee fails to comply.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer reopened the assessment based on information of bogus transactions and accommodation entries. The assessee failed to respond to notices issued by the AO and the CIT(A). The CIT(A) upheld the additions made by the AO in ex-parte proceedings.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte assessment and CIT(A) order were justified given the assessee's non-compliance. Whether the matter should be restored for a fresh assessment with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY

PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal by the assessee is directed against an ex-parte order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 24.02.2026, for Assessment Year 2019-20.

2.

The AO had reopened the assessment in the case of the assessee for A.Y. 2019- 20 on the basis of information that the assessee had indulged in bogus transactions and was a beneficiary of accommodation entries from Shri Sanjay Jain. Notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) was issued on 06.04.2023. There was no response from the assessee to the said notice. Thereafter,

ITA 4271/DEL/2026 AMIT KUMAR notices u/s 142(1) of the Act were issued. In absence of any satisfactory response from the assessee, the AO completed the assessment invoking provisions of section 144 of the Act.

3.

A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the CIT(A) had issued three notices to the assessee, i.e., on 25.03.2025, 02.09.2025 and 03.11.2025. The assessee purportedly sought adjournments, however, no reply was furnished by the assessee thereafter. The CIT(A) in ex-parte proceedings upheld the additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO).

4.

Orders of the lower authorities examined. Considering entire facts of the case and in the interest of justice, I deem it appropriate to restore the matter back to the AO for de novo assessment after allowing reasonable opportunity of making submissions to the assessee, in accordance with law.

5.

The assessee is directed to respond to the notice(s) served by the AO, without fail. It is made clear that if the assessee fails to respond to the notices issued by the AO, the AO shall be at liberty to take an adverse view in the matter.

6.

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on Friday the 05th of June, 2026. Sd/- VIKAS AWASTHY JUDICIAL MEMBER Delhi Dated: 15-June-2026 NV/-

ITA 4271/DEL/2026 AMIT KUMAR Copy to: AMIT KUMAR, H NO. 664 MOH MANGAL BAZAR WALA 1 BEHSUMA TEH MAWANA MEERUT, MEERUT-250404, UTTAR PRADESH INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(1)(1), AAYKAR BHAWAN BAINSALI GROUND 2 MEERUT CANTT MEERUT, HALDWANI-250001, UTTAR PRADESH 3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, DELHI BENCH 5 GUARD FILE

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →