REFOP INDIA COMPANY,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CIRCLE 78(1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3649/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 April 2026AY 2016-172 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not provide reasonable opportunities for the assessee to be heard. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after giving one more opportunity to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte without sufficient opportunity of being heard. The CIT(A) confirmed the AO's order after the assessee failed to file submissions despite multiple opportunities.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) provided sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee before passing an ex-parte order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 201(1),Section 201(1A)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘E’: NEW DELHI

For Appellant: Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR
For Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR
Hearing: 09/04/2026Pronounced: 09/04/2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.3649/Del/2025 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2016-17) Refop India Company Dy. CIT, Office No.6, 2nd Floor, Circle-78(1), Sector-B, Pocket No.7, Plot Vs. Delhi. No.11, Vasant Kunj, Delhi-110070. PAN-AAACR3007K (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Ankit Sahni, Adv. Assessee by Department by Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 09/04/2026 Date of Pronouncement 09/04/2026 O R D E R PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM: This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Panaji [CIT(A) in short], dated 19.03.2025 in Appeal No. NFAC/2015-16/10240230 arising out of the order passed u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act, in short) for Assessment Year 2016-17.

2.

At the outset, from the perusal of the orders of Ld. CIT(A), it is observed that Ld. CIT(A) has passed the impugned orders ex-parte without providing sufficient opportunities of being heard to the assessee, thereby confirming the order of the AO. The assessee in ground of appeal No. 1 has challenged the orders of CIT(A) for not providing reasonable opportunities of being heard.

2 ITA No.3649/Del/2025 Refop India Company vs. DCIT 4. We have heard the parties and considered the facts of the case. From the perusal of the order of Ld. CIT(A), it is observed that only three opportunities were provided by ld. CIT(A) to file submissions and when the assessee failed to file any written submission, CIT(A) proceeded to disposed-off the appeal filed by the assessee exparte sand further confirmed the order of AO on merits also. It is true that assessee did not comply to any of notice issued by ld. CIT(A) and did not file requisite details/documents in support of the claim made in grounds of appeals.

5.

Under these facts and circumstances and in the interest of justice, appeal of the assessee is restored to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits in accordance with law after giving one more opportunity to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to participate in the appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A) and file all the necessary details in support of the grounds of appeal taken.

6.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 09.04.2026. Sd/- Sd/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) (MANISH AGARWAL) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 16.04.2026. *PK, 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 201(1)

All 3,835 judgments and leading authorities on Section 201(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →