VINOD KUMAR,GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NOIDA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 838/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2026AY 2016-175 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the ex-parte orders by the AO and CIT(A) were passed without providing an effective opportunity of hearing, as there was no proof of notice service. This resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed a return of income, but the AO initiated reassessment proceedings based on information about a cash advance for property. The assessee failed to comply with notices during assessment and appeal proceedings, leading to ex-parte orders.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte assessment and appellate orders were valid without proof of service of notices, and if an effective opportunity of hearing was provided to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 69,Section 68,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES ‘A’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. Raj Kumar Chauhan & Sh. Manish Agarwal

Hearing: 19.05.2026Pronounced: 19.05.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES ‘A’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Raj Kumar Chauhan, Judicial Member & Sh. Manish Agarwal, Accountant Member

I.T.A. No. 838/Del/2026: Asstt. Year: 2016-17

Vinod Kumar, CR-504 Eldeco Vs Income Tax Officer, Green Meadows Residency Sector Noida PI-1, Greater Noida, UP-201310 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. BDZPK 6944E Assessee by: Sh. Sandeep Manaktala, C.A. Revenue by: Sh. Jitender Singh, CIT-D.R. Date of Hearing: 19.05.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 19.05.2026

ORDER Per Raj Kumar Chauhan, Judicial Member:

The appeal is directed against the order dated 02.12.2025 of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT (A)/NFAC”] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] wherein the appeal of the assesse was dismissed ex-parte and the assessment order dated 29.03.2025 u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act was upheld and the addition made was confirmed.

2.

The facts in brief as culled out from the order of the authorities below are that the assessee has filed his return of

2 I.T.A. No. 838/Del/2026 Vinod Kumar

income declaring total income at Rs.8,55,370/- for AY 2016-17 and no assessment /reassessment was made for the said AY. From the CBDT under category High Risk information in case of the assessee, it was noticed that the assessee has paid cash advance against property to the tune of Rs. 62,00,000/- in the concerned year. Accordingly, proceeding u/s 148A were initiated while issuing show cause notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act dated 23.03.2023. In reply to the said notice, transactions remained unexplained and after taking approval of the Competent Authority and order u/s 148A(d) of the Act was passed on 7th April, 2023 and notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 7th April, 2023. In response to the said notice, assessee filed return of income. Notice u/s 142(1) was issued on 06.05.2024 and also on other three, four dates but no compliance was made by the assessse to the notice u/s 142(1) of the Act. Final opportunity was given to the assessee by issuing show cause notice u/s 144 of the Act dated 29.03.2025, however no response was filed to the show cause notice, hence proceedings were conducted u/s 144/147 of the Act and best judgment assessment was passed and cash payment of Rs. 62,00,000/- for purchase of property was added u/s 69 of the Act. Other addition of Rs.58,00,000/- was made u/s 68 of the Act on account of unexplained credit in the bank account of the assessee. The details of which is extracted below as under:

3 I.T.A. No. 838/Del/2026 Vinod Kumar

Bank Name & Total credit entries S. No. Account No. F.Y. including cash (Rs.) Account No. 117213011041 2015-16 36,00,000/- Bank of Baroda A/c 1 No. 117213011041 117213011098 2015-16 9,00,000/- Bank of Baroda A/c 2 No 117213011098 3 117211011235 2015-16 1,50,000/- Bank of Baroda A/c No 117211011235 4 117210012785 117210012785 2015-16 11,50,000/- Total 58,00,000/-

3.

Aggrieved by the impugned order, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) which was dismissed ex-parte because the appellant has failed to respond the notice sent on three dates as mentioned in para 2 of the impugned order.

4.

We have heard the ld. AR and the ld. DR.

5.

The ld. AR at the very outset submitted that the impugned assessment order as well as ld. CIT(A) order is ex-parte as no effective opportunity of hearing was given to the assessee because the notices allegedly sent to the assesee during the assessment proceedings as well as during hearing by the first appellate authority were never served/received by the assessee. It is further argued that there is no material brought on record

4 I.T.A. No. 838/Del/2026 Vinod Kumar

that the notices sent by the ld. CIT(A) as well as by the Assessing Officer were ever received by the assessee.

6.

The ld. DR on the other hand while supporting the judgment of the lower authorities has submitted that the assessee has miserably failed to avail the opportunity given by the Assessing Officer as well as by the ld. CIT(A) during the appellate proceedings and as such prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

7.

We have considered the rival submissions and examined the materials on record. Section 250(2)(a) of the Act provides as under:

“Section 250 (2) The following shall have the right to be heard at the hearing of the appeal: - a. The appellant, either in person or by an authorized representative;”

8.

Thus, the opportunity of hearing is not mere formality but a mandatory statutory requirement of law. On perusal of the assessment order as well as the ld. CIT(A) order, we have noticed that there is nothing to conclude that the notices sent by both the authorities were ever served/received by the assessee/appellant. In the absence of said proof, we are of the considered opinion that the disposal of the appeal ex-parte by ld. CIT(A), and the best judgement assessment u/s 144 of the Act, in the absence of representation of the assessee during the

5 I.T.A. No. 838/Del/2026 Vinod Kumar

assessment proceedings has resulted into miscarriage of justice. The effective opportunity of hearing has not been afforded by the ld. lower authorities. In view of that facts and reasons, the end of justice requires that the matter be restored to the file of the ld. AO for deciding the same afresh after giving effective opportunity of hearing to assessee.

9.

The assessee is also directed to present his case before the Assessing Officer with in a period of 60 days of this order.

10.

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in the above terms.

Order pronounced in the Open Court as on 19.05.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (Manish Agarwal) (Raj Kumar Chauhan) Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 19/05/2026 *G.P. Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →