SANJEEV MALIK,DEHRADUN vs. PR. CIT, BAREILLY, BAREILLY

PDF · subscribers
ITA 202/DDN/2026Status: HeardITAT Dehradun25 June 2026AY 2021-223 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given an opportunity to present their case. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the PCIT for fresh consideration.

What were the facts?

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) withdrew the exemption under Section 54B of the Act, taxing an amount as business income. The assessee contended that the PCIT's order was passed ex parte as the notice was never received.

What were the issues?

Whether the PCIT's order under Section 263 was passed without providing the assessee with adequate opportunity to be heard.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 54B,Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Matta, CA (VC)
For Respondent: Shri S.K. Chaterjee, CIT DR (VC)
Hearing: 23.06.2026

ITA No.202/DDN/2026 SANJEEV MALIK

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “DB” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.202/DDN/2026 Assessment Year: 2021-22 SANJEEV MALIK, Vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF Matta Garg & Co., Chartered INCOME TAX, Accountants, 15, Astley Hall, Income Tax Office, Haldwani, Dehradun 248001, Uttarakhand. Bareilly, Uttarakhand, Nainital PAN No. AEZPK5265L 263139. Appellant Respondent

Assessee by Shri S.K. Matta, CA (VC) Revenue by Shri S.K. Chaterjee, CIT DR (VC)

Date of hearing: 23.06.2026 Pronouncement on 25.06.2026 O R D E R PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. This appeal arises from order u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”), dated 28.03.2025, passed by Ld. PCIT, Bareilly. It is seen that in this case, the Ld. PCIT directed that exemption u/s 54B of the Act to the tune of Rs.154,63,068/- should be withdrawn and this amount should be taxed as business income after allowing the benefit of cost of land.

ITA No.202/DDN/2026 SANJEEV MALIK 1.1 The Ld. AR pointed out that the impugned order was passed in an ex parte manner since the single notice issued by the Ld. PCIT was never received by the assessee and therefore no reply could be filed. The Ld. AR drew our attention to page 4 of the impugned order (paras 3 & 4) thereon and stated that there was no opportunity to file any details before the Ld. PCIT and therefore presumably, an adverse order has been passed. It was the prayer that the assessee may be given another opportunity to present the facts and also give a proper response to the allegation contained in the single notice dated 06.03.2025, issued by the Ld. PCIT, so that the PCIT could consider the same and pass an appropriate order thereafter or drop the proceedings altogether.

2.

We find that indeed this is the case and on this issue we invited comment from the Ld. DR who fairly mentioned that there would be no objection in case this matter was to be remanded back to the Ld. PCIT for fresh consideration.

2.1 Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it fit to set aside the impugned order and remand this matter back to the file of Ld. PCIT for fresh consideration. We expect the assessee to be vigilant about the notices to be issued from the office of the Ld. PCIT and thereafter make full compliance so that there is adequate material before the Ld. PCIT for taking an appropriate view in the matter.

ITA No.202/DDN/2026 SANJEEV MALIK

3.

In the result, appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 25.06.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (ANUBHAV SHARMA) (SANJAY AWASTHI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 25.06.2026 *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 54B

All 814 judgments and leading authorities on Section 54B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →