SKILL TREE CONSULTING LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(1)(1),GHAZIBAD, GHAZIBAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without affording sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after providing a proper hearing.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed in default. The Assessing Officer had rejected the assessee's books of accounts and estimated net profit at 4% of total turnover, making an addition to the returned income.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in default without affording a sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee, thus violating principles of natural justice.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 145(3),Section 250,Section 115JB
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘C’ : NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH & MS. RENU JAUHRI
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘C’ : NEW DELHI)
BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 2366/Del/2026 Asstt. Year : 2023-24 SKILL TREE CONSULTING LTD. VS. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), 208, 2ND FLOOR, DLF STAR TOWER, Ghaziabad SECTOR-30, SADAR BAZAR, GURGAON HO, GURGAON-122001, HARYANA [PAN: AAPCS5132B] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Satish Mody, Adv. (Through VC) Respondent by : Adjournment Application by Ms. Sunita Yonzone, ITO on behalf of Sr. DR is rejected. Date of Hearing 29.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement 29.06.2026
ORDER PER SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JM : 1. This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the impugned order dated 02.01.2026 passed in Appeal No. NFAC/2022-23/10481972 by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “Act”) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2023-24, wherein Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s appeal in default of the assessee. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a company and filed its return of income on 20.10.2023 by declaring a total income of Rs. 2,85,02,290/- and book profit of Rs. 3,13,77,631/- u/s. 115JB of the Act. The return of income filed by
the assessee was selected for scrutiny under the CASS mechanism. Accordingly, notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act dated 19.6.2024 was issued and served upon the assessee through its registered email address. Thereafter, various notices issued u/s. 142(1) of the Act calling for information and details from time to time and in response to the same, assessee submitted the requisite details and explanations. Subsequently, AO issued show cause notice dated 7.3.2025 proposing to reject the books of accounts and to estimate the net profit at the rate of 8% of the total turnover and in response thereof assesse filed written submission. After considering the submission, AO rejected books of account of the assessee by invoking the provisions of section 145(3) of the Act and proceeded to estimate the net profit at 4% of the total turnover by making addition of Rs. 1,61,11,120/- to the returned income of the assessee. 3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid assessment order, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who dismissed the assessee’s first appeal in default of assessee. 4. Against the impugned order, assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal on the ground that Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,61,11,120/- to the returned income by estimating profit @4% of total turnover without affording sufficient opportunity of hearing to the appellant-assessee. 5. Ld. AR for the assessee, at the very outset informed that impugned order has been passed by the Ld. CIT(A), exparte in violation of principles of natural justice. Prayed to set aside the impugned order. 6. Adjournment application has been moved by the ITO, C-Bench on behalf of the Ld. Sr. DR, after perusing the said adjournment application, the same was rejected. 7. We have heard the Ld. AR and perused the records. We find that in the instant case, AO has passed the assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act. We further note that assessee did not respond to the various notices issued by the Ld. First Appellate Authority, who passed exparte impugned order on merit. 2 | P a g e
The reluctant attitude of the assessee cannot be appreciated. However, in the interest of natural justice and fair play, we deem it fit and proper to afford an opportunity to the assessee and thus remit the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication on merits afresh after affording sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee. We further direct the assessee to be diligent and cooperative in attending the hearings and making submissions before the Ld. CIT(A) for the expeditious and effective disposal of the appeal. Also, assessee should refrain from seeking any adjournment except for compelling and unavoidable circumstances. Needless to say that the Ld. CIT(A) shall ensure the observance of the principles of natural justice. It is made clear that we have not made any observation in respect of the merits of the case. Accordingly, the appeal is liable to be allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 29.06.2026.
Sd/- Sd/- (RENU JAUHRI) (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Date: 30.06.2026 SRBhatnaggar Copy forwarded to: - 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. DIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY By Order,
Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Delhi Bench
3 | P a g e
More judgments on Section 142(1)
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Subhash Chand Saini, Jaipur vs ITO Ward, Behror, BherorITA 36/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Venish Vinodray Lalani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, MorbiITA 197/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Gaurav Jiteshbhai Joshi, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1000/RJT/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Mehra Mac Industries Private Limited vs. The Deputy State Tax OfficerTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- Santosh Das And Anr. vs. Union Of INDIACalcutta · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S Rama Krishna Industries vs. State Of Hp And OthersHimachal Pradesh · 30 Oct 2026
- Smt Usha W/O Shri Tarun vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maruti Nandan Minetech Private Limited vs. The Joint CommissionerRajasthan · 29 Oct 2026