AJAY MANGAL,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 17(1), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 89/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 May 2026AY 2023-243 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the impugned order did not clearly record the email addresses to which notices were sent and whether there was complete electronic delivery. Therefore, the assessee was not given an adequate opportunity to contest the additions on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against an order of the NFAC. The assessee's primary contention was that additions were sustained without adequate opportunity to be heard. Notices were allegedly sent to email addresses provided by the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was provided with adequate opportunity of hearing before the additions were sustained. The validity of electronic service of notices by the appellate authority.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, DELHI

Before: SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN & SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA

Hearing: 19.05.2026Pronounced: 22.05.2026

PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:

This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 07.11.2025 of the Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter

P a g e | 2 ITA No.89/Del/2026 Ajay Mangal (AY: 2023-24) referred to as the First Appellate Authority or ‘the ld. FAA’ for short) in DIN & Order No : ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1082386067(1) arising out of the order dated 22.03.2025 u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) passed by Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department for AY: 2023-24.

2.

On hearing both sides we find that though assessee has raised ground on merits but in ground No. 2 assessee alleges that impugned additions were sustained without giving adequate opportunity to the assessee.

3.

Ld. DR has pointed out that notices were issued by the NFAC, however, after going through the impugned order we find that notices were allegedly sent on email addresses provided by the assessee in appeal memo. Ld. AR has submitted that notices were received otherwise. The order does not record which email address the notices were actually sent and there was complete electronic delivery of same.

4.

In light of aforesaid, considering the nature of factual aspects involved we consider it appropriate case to give assessee an opportunity to contest on

P a g e | 3 ITA No.89/Del/2026 Ajay Mangal (AY: 2023-24) merits. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes and issue on merits as well as law, if any, are restored to the files of ld. CIT(A) to give fresh opportunity of hearing to the assessee and pass an order afresh.

Order pronounced in the open court on 22.05.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (Anubhav Sharma) (S Rifaur Rahman) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated 22.05.2026 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 144B

All 10,521 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →