INVESTORS CLINIC INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED,NOIDA vs. DCIT CC-15, DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not decide the issues on merit. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issue on merit.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed appeals against the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without adjudicating the substantive grounds on merits, relying on decisions regarding non-prosecution.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without deciding the substantive grounds on merits.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘F’: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN & SHRI VIMAL KUMAR
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.3919 to 3922/DEL/2026 (Assessment Years : 2020-21 to 2023-24) Investors Clinic Infratech Pvt. Ltd., vs. DCIT, Central Circle 15, 21st Floor, Astralis Tower, Delhi. Supertech Supernova, Sector 94, Noida – 201 301 (Uttar Pradesh). (PAN : AACCI2147R) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : None REVENUE BY : Shri Yashvendra Singh, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 25.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 25.06.2026 ORDER PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM: 1. The assessee has filed appeals against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi – 26 [“Ld. CIT(A)”, for short]dated 11.03.2026 for the Assessment Years 2020-21 to 2023-24. 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. We are proceeding to decide the appeal with the assistance of ld. DR of the Revenue. 3. At the time of hearing, we observed that the ld. CIT (A) decided the issue against the assessee ex-parte without properly adjudicating the substantive
2 ITA Nos.3919 to 3922/Del/2026
grounds raised by the assesse eon merits. He proceeded to adjudicate by relying on several decisions on the subject of non-prosecution and, he dismissed the appeal in limine. We observed that that ld. CIT (A) has not decided the issues on merit and sustained the addition relying on the order of the Assessing Officer 4. On the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue relied on the orders of the authorities below. 5. Considered the submissions of the ld. DR of the Revenue and material placed on record. We observed that the addition was sustained by the ld. CIT (A) relying on the order of Assessing Officer ex-parte. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we direct ld. CIT (A) to give an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issue on merit as per law. 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. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 6. In the result,the appeals filed by the assessee areallowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on this25thday of June, 2026 after the conclusion of the hearing.
Sd/- sd/- (VIMAL KUMAR) (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dated: 30.06.2026 TS
3 ITA Nos.3919 to 3922/Del/2026
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sushama Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Saudamini Samantray vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar IiOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Keshav Rice Mill, Ganjam vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, KatakaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Nanda Contruction PVT. LTD., Angul vs. Additional Commissioner, GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, SundergarhOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Utkal Suppliers,Ganjam vs. Assistant Commissioner Of CT And GST, Ganjam-I Circle,GanjamOrissa · 28 Oct 2026