What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A). Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remanded the matters back for fresh adjudication.

The assessee filed appeals for assessment years 2019-20 to 2022-23. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) did not provide adequate opportunity to present facts and documents, leading to a violation of natural justice.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) denied the assessee adequate opportunity to present their case, thereby violating principles of natural justice.

Lokesh Kumar, Gurugram vs ACIT | ITAT Delhi 2026

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

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI

For Appellant: Ms. Apoorva Bhardwaj, CA (Virtual), Shri Ankit Dabar, CA

For Respondent: Shri Bhopal Singh, CIT DR

Hearing: 29.06.2026

ITA Nos. 1017 to 1020/Del/2026 LOKESH KUMAR IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “H” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.1017 to 1020/Del/2026 Assessment Years: 2019-20 to 2022-23 LOKESH KUMAR, Vs. ACIT, House No.169, Urban Estate, 108, First Floor, Income Tax Gurugram, Gurgaon, Haryana Building, E-2, ARA Centre, 122001. Jhandewalan Extension, New PAN No. BCQPK2702L Delhi, Delhi 110055. Appellant Respondent Assessee by Ms. Apoorva Bhardwaj, CA (Virtual) Shri Ankit Dabar, CA Revenue by Shri Bhopal Singh, CIT DR Date of hearing: 29.06.2026 Pronouncement on 29.06.2026 O R D E R PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. This is a batch of 4 appeals of the same assessee for AYs 2019-20 to 2022-23. For the sake of convenience ITA No.1017/Del/2026 pertaining to AY 2019-20 is being taken as the lead case and it is on this basis that a decision is proposed to be rendered in the remaining three appeals also.

ITA No.1017/Del/2026 pertaining to AY 2019-20 arises from order dated 25.11.2025, passed by Ld. CIT(A)-27, New Delhi, u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”). Right at the outset, the Ld. AR mentioned that at the first appellate stage no opportunity was given to the assessee for presenting the facts and documents. The Ld. AR

ITA Nos. 1017 to 1020/Del/2026 LOKESH KUMAR mentioned that the opportunities given by the Ld. CIT(A) involved considerable details to be filed at very short notice. It was the prayer that the assessee may be given another chance to present the facts and documents before the Ld. CIT(A) and for this reason the Ld. AR prayed for remitting back this matter.

2.1 The Ld. DR, on the other hand, stated that it was the assessee’s duty to comply before the Ld. CIT(A) and in any case the Ld. AO had passed a speaking order, which deserved to be upheld.

We have considered the rival submissions and we have gone through the records before us. We find that in the appeal under consideration (ITA 1017/Del/2026) it is mentioned on page 4 at paras 4 & 4.1 thereon that the opportunities afforded to the assessee were not availed of. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) proceeded to adjudicate the matter on the strength of the facts having been brought on record by the Ld.AO. In this regard, we find that the first ground of appeal itself of the assessee challenges the impugned order on the ground of denial of opportunity and violating the principles of natural justice. It is felt that in the interests of substantive justice, the assessee deserves another chance to establish his case before the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and remand this matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

ITA Nos. 1017 to 1020/Del/2026 LOKESH KUMAR 3.1 We find that in the remaining three appeals also the same situation prevails and in the impugned orders it is clearly mentioned that the opportunities provided to the assessee were not availed of. Accordingly, following the decision rendered in ITA No.1017/Del/2026 (supra) the remaining appeals are also remanded back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication and for this purpose the impugned orders in those appeals are set aside.

In the result, all the four appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 29.06.2026 Sd/- Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) (SANJAY AWASTHI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 30.06.2026 *Kavita Arora, Sr. P.S. Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI

LOKESH KUMAR,GURUGRAM vs. ACIT, DELHI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments