MASCOT REALTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 16(1), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7305/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 June 2026AY 2014-153 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the NFAC order lacked details on proper service of notices. Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing and decision on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed an ex-parte order from the NFAC. The NFAC sustained additions because the assessee failed to respond to notices. The assessee claimed no notices were served.

What were the issues?

Whether the NFAC erred in deciding the appeal ex-parte without proper service of notice and deciding on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, DELHI

Before: SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN & SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA

For Appellant: CA Sh. Monark Jain, CA
Hearing: 26.05.2026Pronounced: 26.05.2026

PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:

This appeal is preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 22.09.2025 of the Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi

P a g e | 2 ITA No.7305/Del/2025 Mascot Realtech Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2014-15) (hereinafter referred as Ld. First Appellate Authority or in short Ld. ‘FAA’) in DIN & Order No: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1081008417(1) arising out of the order dated 24.05.2023 u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) passed by the Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, for AY: 2014-15.

2.

On hearing both sides we find that assesse has raised ground that NFAC has erred in deciding the appeal ex-parte without deciding appeal on merits. The impugned order of NFAC records in para 6.2 about a notice being served calling for submissions and evidences in support of the grounds, however, assesse had failed to respond, therefore, the impugned additions were sustained on the basis of reasons given by the assessing officer.

3.

Ld. AR has however submitted that no notice were served and in that regard we find that in the order of NFAC though it is mentioned that notices were issued through ITBA system, however, the details of the email id and satisfaction that they were duly served in accordance with law is absent.

P a g e | 3 ITA No.7305/Del/2025 Mascot Realtech Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2014-15) 4. Thus, we consider it appropriate case to restore the issue on merits as well as law to the files of ld. CIT(A) to give fresh opportunity of hearing and decide the appeal afresh. Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 26.05.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (S Rifaur Rahman) (Anubhav Sharma) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dated 05.06.2026 Rohit, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →