What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that both the AO and CIT(A) orders were ex-parte and the CIT(A) had not decided all grounds on merits. Therefore, the case was restored to the AO for de-novo assessment, with a direction for the AO to provide a hearing opportunity and the assessee to participate.

The assessee filed an appeal against the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) which had dismissed their appeal against the AO's assessment order. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) order was passed in violation of natural justice principles.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte orders passed by the lower authorities violated principles of natural justice and whether the CIT(A) had decided all grounds of appeal on merits.

Uma Shankar Sharma, Haryana vs ITO | ITAT Delhi 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI

Before: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI

For Appellant: Adv & Sh

Hearing: 23.04.2026Pronounced: 28.04.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI [ DELHI BENCH: “A” NEW DELHI] BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 8909/DEL/2025 ( A.Y 2012-13) Uma Shankar Sharma Vs ITO 1940, Air Force Road, Ward 2(5), Faridabad, Haryana Jawahar Colony, Faridabad, (RESPONDENT) Haryana PAN: BKNPS0738M (APPLICANT) Appellant by Sh. Rajinder Singh Rathor, Adv & Sh. Manpreet Singh Kapoor, CA Respondent by Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr DR

Date of Hearing 23.04.2026 Date of Pronouncement 28.04.2026

ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM:

The present appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of

Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals/ National Faceless Appeal

Centre (‘Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC’ for short), New Delhi dated 11/11/2025 for

the Assessment Year 2012-13.

Brief facts of the case are that, an assessment order came to be

passed on 28/12/2018 u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act'

for short) by making certain additions. The Assessee preferred an

Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) which has been dismissed on

11/11/2025 vide order impugned. As against the order of the Ld.

CIT(A) dated 11/11/2025 , the Assessee preferred the present Appeal.

The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that both the order

of the A.O. as well as Ld. CIT(A) are ex-parte and the Ld. CIT(A) has

not decided on the grounds of the Appeal of the Assessee and the

order impugned came to be passed in violation of principals of natural

justice. Thus, sought for allowing the Appeal.

Per contra, the Ld. Department's Representative submitted that

the Assessee is a chronic defaulter who has not appeared before the

Lower Authorities, therefore, both the A.O. as well as the Ld. CIT(A)

have passed the respective orders in accordance with law which

requires no interference, thus by relying on the orders of the Lower

Authorities sought for dismissal of the Appeal.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material

available on record. Both the order of the A.O. as well as order of the

Ld. CIT(A) are ex-parte, wherein the Assessee has not participated in

any of the proceedings. Even the Ld. CIT(A) has not decided all the

grounds of Appeal on its merits. In view of the above, in the interest of

justice, we deem it fit to restore the issue to the file of the A.O. for de-

novo assessment. Needless to say, the A.O. shall provide opportunity

of being heard to the Assessee before passing the assessment order in

accordance with law. The Assessee is also directed to participate in

assessment proceedings without fail.

In the result, the Appeal of the Appellant is partly allowed for

statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on this 28th Day of April, 2026 Sd/- Sd/- (SANJAY AWASTHI) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 28/04/2026 R. Naheed * Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI

UMA SHANKAR SHARMA,HARYANA vs. ITO, WARD 2(5), FBD, HARYANA

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