What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by not providing an adequate opportunity to be heard and file additional submissions. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The assessee appealed to the CIT(A) and filed partial submissions on legal issues, requesting further time to submit on merits. The CIT(A) decided the appeal without granting this opportunity.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) violated the principle of natural justice by deciding the appeal without granting the assessee a proper opportunity to file submissions on merits.

Shrishti Buildhome Private… vs DCIT | ITAT Delhi 2026

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

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH & SHRI MANISH AGARWALSHRISHTI BUILDHOME PRIVATE

For Appellant: Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. & Sh. Shivam

Hearing: 23.06.2026Pronounced: 23.06.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “E”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 5180/Del/2025 A.YR. : 2012-13 SHRISHTI BUILDHOME PRIVATE DCIT, CIRCLE 22(2), LIMITED, VS. DELHI 207, HARSHA HOUSE C.R. BUILDING, I.P. ESTATE, COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, NEW DELHI – 110 002 KARAMPURA, NEW DELHI – 110015 (PAN: AALCS0163J)

(APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)

Assessee by : Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. & Sh. Shivam Yadav, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Raghubir Singh, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 23.06.2026 Date of pronouncement : 23.06.2026 ORDER PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP:

The Assessee has filed the Appeal against the Order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi dated 10.6.2025, relating to assessment year 2012-13. 2. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that she is pressing Ground No. 3 regarding violation of principle of natural justice, as the CIT(A) decided the appeal without allowing proper opportunity of being heard, as the assessee has filed partial submissions on legal issue and specifically requested to file submissions on merits. The relevant ground no. 3 reads as under:- “3. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the NFAC has erred in passing the order under section 250(6) of the Act without giving the

assessee a proper and adequate opportunity of being heard. The assessee had filed partial submissions on legal issues and had specifically requested for time to file submissions on merits as well, which the NFAC has failed to grant further time to the assessee, thereby leading to violation of principles of natural justice.”

Ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out the submissions filed before the CIT(A) are reproduced in the order of the CIT(A) from page nos. 12 to 17. The assessee has specifically asked for additional submissions to be filed on next date of hearing. The relevant para no. 13 of the submission reproduced at page no. 17, before the Ld. CIT(A) reads as under:- “13. The appellant respectfully submits that these written submissions are only filed on the specific issue concerning the DIN. Should your Honour wish to proceed with other issues in the matter, the appellant respectfully seeks an opportunity to file additional submissions on other legal issues and the merits of the case. In that case, a further six weeks are to be granted to the appellant to file written submissions, and the next date of hearing is to be communicated to the appellant by issuing a fresh notice.”

In view of the above, Ld. Counsel for the assessee requested that the matter may be restored back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. 5. Ld. DR vehemently supported the orders of the lower authorities.

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the records. We find that it was the specific request of the Ld. AR for seeking an opportunity to file additional submissions on other legal issues and the merits of the case before the Ld. CIT(A), but Ld. CIT(A) did not give any opportunity to file the additional submissions on the aforesaid issues. In view of the aforesaid factual matrix and in the interest of justice, we deem it fit and proper to restore back the issues on legal as well as merits to the file of the CIT(A) with the directions to decide the same afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and also allow the assessee to file the additional submissions, if any. We hold and direct

accordingly. Further, the assessee through its Ld. AR is directed to fully cooperate with the Ld. CIT(A) during the proceedings and file the additional submissions, if so desired, in accordance with law. 7. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in open court on 23.06.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH AGARWAL) (MAHAVIR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT

SRBHATNAGAR

Date: 24-06-2026

SHRISHTI BUILDHOME PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 22(2), DELHI, 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