AJAY KAUSHIK,FARIDABAD vs. ITO WARD 1(1), FARIDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 8578/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 July 2026AY 2012-133 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given an adequate opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh assessment.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 27,33,500/- under Section 69A of the Act. The assessee did not comply with notices issued by the CIT(A), leading to an ex parte order.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in passing an ex parte order without providing the assessee with a proper opportunity of being heard.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI

For Respondent: Shri Bhopal Singh, CIT DR
Hearing: 02.07.2026

ITA No. 8578/DEL/2025 AJAY KAUSHIK, FARIDABAD

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 No.8578/DEL/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 AJAY KAUSHIK, Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, H.No.242, Sector 15A, Income Tax Office, Ward 1(1), Faridabad, Haryana 121002. CGO Complex, NH-IV, Faridabad, PAN No. AHAPK1090R Haryana 121001. Appellant Respondent

Assessee by None Revenue by Shri Bhopal Singh, CIT DR Date of hearing: 02.07.2026 Pronouncement on 02.07.2026 O R D E R PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

This appeal arises from order dated 18.11.2024, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”), by NFAC. In this case, none appeared on behalf of the assessee on the last date of hearing but it was decided to proceed ahead with the help of Ld. DR. It is seen that in this case, the Ld. AO made an addition of Rs.27,33,500/- u/s 69A of the Act, due to which the assessee approached the Ld. CIT(A) with his grievance.

ITA No. 8578/DEL/2025 AJAY KAUSHIK, FARIDABAD 1.1 It is seen that before the Ld. CIT(A) there was no compliance whatsoever to the three notices issued for filing submissions (page 5 para 5 of the impugned order).

1.2 Further aggrieved, the assessee has approached the ITAT where the first ground taken is challenging the ex parte order.

2.

The Ld. DR assisted the Bench in going through the records. It was pointed out that the assessee had sufficient opportunity to present the facts before both the Ld. AO and the Ld. CIT(A). It was pointed out by the Ld. DR that in the face of non-compliance by the assessee either of the authorities below had no option but to pass orders in an ex parte manner.

3.

We have considered the submissions of Ld. DR and have gone through the records before us. We find that the assessee did not appear before the Ld.CIT(A) but has challenged the action of Ld.CIT(A) in passing an ex parte order. While we reserve our comment on the alertness of the assessee regarding taxation matters, we are bound by the Judicial Principle of Natural Justice and therefore, we deem it fit to set aside the impugned order and remand this matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh assessment, after providing an opportunity of being heard.

ITA No. 8578/DEL/2025 AJAY KAUSHIK, FARIDABAD 4. In the result, appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 02.07.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) (SANJAY AWASTHI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 07.07.2026 *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

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →