AJNARA INDIA LIMITED,NOIDA ELECTRONIC CITY, UTTAR PRADESH vs. ACIT/DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -14, DELHI, JHANDEWALAN EXTN. NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1972/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 June 2026AY 2022-234 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee deserved another opportunity to be heard by the CIT(A) to ensure natural justice. The case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2022-23. The assessee argued that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without considering all submitted details and evidence.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred by passing an ex-parte order without providing adequate opportunity of hearing and considering all evidence. Whether the assessment order was bad in law due to the assessee being under Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 144B,Section 115JB,Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: MS. MADHUMITA ROY & SHRI KRIWANT SAHAY

For Appellant: CA Sh. Manessh Upneja, CA
Hearing: 29.06.2026Pronounced: 30.06.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘B’: NEW DELHI BEFORE MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI KRIWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No.1972/Del/2026 [Assessment Year: 2022-23] Anjara India Limited Vs. ACIT/ DCIT, Office No. 810, Iconic Central Circle 14 Corunthum Tower, Noida Delhi Electronic City, Uttar Pradesh, 201309 PAN No. AAACA4700C Appellant Respondent Appellant by Sh. Baldev Raj, CA Sh. Manessh Upneja, CA Respondent by Sh. Mahendra Singh, Sr. DR

Date of Hearing 29.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement 30.06.2026 ORDER PER KRINWANT SAHAY A.M. Appeal in this case has been filed by the Assessee against the order dated 03.12.2026 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi for the A.Y. 2022-23. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal :- “Ground No.1: The Assessment order dated 16.03.2024 passed by the Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department (in short Ld. AO] under section 143(3) r.w.s 144B of the Income-tax Act [in short the Act) and

upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi-26 [in short Ld. CIT(A)] vide its order dated 03.12.2025 is bad at law & on facts both hence, the same is void ab initio and liable to be quashed. Ground No. 2: That on the facts and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in passing the impugned order without providing the Appellant adequate and effective opportunity of being heard which is violation of the principles of natural justice Ground No. 2.1: That, on facts and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the order of the L.d. AO, which was passed without appreciating the fact that the Appellant Company was under the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). Ground No. 3: That on the facts and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has grossly erred in upholding to restrict the loss of the Appellant at Rs. 62,02,13,498/-, as against the returned/declared loss of Rs. 74,37,04,985/-, Ground No. 4: That on the facts and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has grossly erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 12,34,91,487/-being the disallowance of 15 percent of total expenses of Rs. 84,32,76,581/-claimed. Ground No. 5: That on the facts and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in upholding the computation of Book profit u/s 115JB and consequence levy of tax on deemed total income u/s 115JB to Rs. 12,34,911,487/-, Ground No. 6:- That on the facts and in circumstances of the 7 case, the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in upholding the levying Rs. 0 the interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act respectively. Ground No. 7:- All the above grounds are independent and without prejudice to others. That the appellant carves the right to 8 add, modify, amend and DLEETE the grounds of appeal before, Rs. 0 during OR after the course of the hearing, with prior approval of the honourable bench.”

3.

At the very outset the Ld. Counsel for the assessee brought it to the notice of the Bench that the order in this case has been passed by the Ld. CIT(A) exparte without giving careful consideration of all the papers and details filed as additional evidence during appellate proceedings. Accordingly, the Ld. Counsel requested for remanding this case back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with the direction to adjudicate the case afresh. 4. Per contra the Ld. DR vehemently opposed sending this case back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) and supported the orders given on different issues by the Ld. CIT(A). 5. We have considered the assessment orders and the appellate order and we have also heard both the parties during proceedings before us. We are of this view in order to have natural justice and the assessee deserves to have one more opportunity to the Ld. CIT(A) to be heard alongwtih all the documents / details filed. Accordingly, we are inclined to remand this issue back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) to decide different grounds of appeal of the assessee afresh and consider all the papers and documents filed by the assessee. In case if the Ld. CIT(A) feels so he may get remand report from the AO and then decide the issues accordingly. Accordingly, the assessee’s appeal is remand back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for adjudication.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 30.06.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [MADHUMITA ROY] [KRINWANT SAHAY] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANTMEMBER Dated: 30.06.2026 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 144B

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →