AHASAN ALI,SAHARANPUR vs. ITO WARD-3(3)(3), SAHARANPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7662/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 April 2026AY 2019-202 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without considering the assessee's submissions and without adhering to principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the AO for a fresh assessment.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) for non-prosecution. The assessee claimed to have filed submissions challenging the initiation of proceedings, but the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without adjudicating these grounds.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without adjudicating the grounds of appeal, and whether principles of natural justice were violated.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 148,Section 148A,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

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.7662/Del/2025 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2019-20) Ahasan Ali, Income Tax Officer, Near Mandir, Gram Hariyabans, Ward-3(3)(3), Pheraheri, Saharanpu, Vs. Saharanpur. Uttar Pradsh-247001. PAN-AYQPA4182M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by None 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 Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A) in short] in Appeal No. NFAC/2018-19/10376054 dated 07.10.2025 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act, in short) arising out of the assessment order dated 21.02.2024 passed u/s 147 r.w.s144 r.w.s.144B of the Act by NFAC, Delhi for Assessment Year 2019-20.

2.

Heard the parties. None appeared on behalf of assessee. From the perusal of the order of ld. CIT(A), it is observed that the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by Ld. CIT(A) for non-prosecution. Before us, assessee filed statement of facts alongwith appeal memo, wherein it is stated that on the date fixed for hearing on 01.10.2025, detailed submission on the first ground of appeal was filed challenging

2 ITA No.7662/Del/2025 Ahasan Ali vs. ITO the legality of initiation of proceedings u/s 148/148A of the Act. It was further also requested that submissions on other grounds will be submitted within 15 days. However, Ld. CIT(A) without even adjudicating the legal ground of appeal or referring to the written submissions made by the assessee, has dismissed the appeal by observing that the assessee has not filed written submission despite several requests. It is further observed that the assessment order was also exparte as the assessee has not made any compliance before the AO also.

3.

Under these circumstances, as a principle of the natural justice, one more opportunities is given to the assessee and the matter is remanded to the file of the AO with direction to pass the order denovo afresh after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to participate in remand proceedings before the AO. With these directions, the case is allowed for statistical purposes.

4.

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands 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 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →