PEE EMPRO EXPORTS PVT LTD,FARIDABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE - 32, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3635/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 June 2026AY 2018-193 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex parte order and failed to provide a hearing to the assessee. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the matter was restored for a fresh decision after affording a proper opportunity of hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) resulted in an ex parte order without considering the assessee's submissions. The assessee argued that assessment proceedings were initiated without a mandatory notice under Section 143(2).

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex parte order without affording a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee, and whether the assessment proceedings were valid without a mandatory notice under Section 143(2).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “F”, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN & SHRI VIMAL KUMAR

For Appellant: Shri M P Rastogi, Adv, Shri Ram Naresh, Adv
For Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Hearing: 22.06.2026Pronounced: 30.06.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 3635/Del/2026, A.Y. 2018-19 Pee Empro Exports Pvt. Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Ltd., Income Tax, Plot – 78, Sector 27A, Central circle 32, Main Mathura Road, New Delhi Faridabad 121003 �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: AAACP3293P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Shri M P Rastogi, Adv. Shri Ram Naresh, Adv. Respondent by : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 22.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement 30.06.2026

O R D E R PER VIMAL KUMAR, JM: The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 16.09.2026, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “the CIT(A)”].

P a g e | 2 ITA No. 3635/Del/2026 PEE Empro Exports Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad 2. Heard both the parties and perused the material on record. We observed that Ld. CIT(A) passed ex parte order failed to consider submissions before it by the assessee. Assessee contends that the assessment proceedings without issuing the mandatory notice u/s 143(2) before proceeding u/s 142(1). Therefore, the matter may be restored back to the file of ld. CIT(A). 3. Ld. Departmental Representative had no objection.

4.

From examination of the record, it is crystal clear that the Ld. CIT(A) passed the ex parte order. Therefore, we direct Ld. CIT(A) to give an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issue on merit as per law. It is considered expedient to set aside the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) and restored the matter to the files of the ld. CIT(A) for a fresh decision in accordance with law, after affording fair opportunity of hearing to the assessee. We also direct assessee to make proper submissions and appear before the Ld. CIT(A) on the date of hearing and cooperate with the tax authorities.

5.

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

P a g e | 3 ITA No. 3635/Del/2026 PEE Empro Exports Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad Order pronounced in the open court on 30.06.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) (VIMAL KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 30.06.2026 Binita, 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 142(1)

All 17,244 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →