ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. BAZEL INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 4007/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 September 2026AY 2016-174 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal considered the findings of the lower authorities and the arguments presented by both sides. The Tribunal was of the view that the matter should be remanded back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to provide adequate opportunity of being heard to the appellant and also directed the assessee to file all relevant details and documents in time. The specific findings on the additions made under Section 69 and the validity of the ex-parte order were not definitively decided but were to be re-examined by the CIT(A). No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Kanhiya Lal Gautam, filed an appeal against the order dated 03.07.2024 passed by the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, New Delhi, for Assessment Year 2017-18. The Assessing Officer (AO) had passed an ex-parte assessment order under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, making additions of Rs. 1,85,93,020/- and Rs. 2,32,68,230/- under Section 69. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's order, noting the assessee's failure to provide details of its foreign activities or documentary evidence of its non-resident status, or proof of conversion of Euros brought from Paris into Indian currency. The total tax effect of the disputed additions was Rs. 2,32,68,230/-.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the learned CIT(Appeals) erred in law by upholding the unjustified ex-parte order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 144 and the additions of Rs. 1,85,93,020/- and Rs. 2,32,68,230/- under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. (Mixed law and fact) 2. Whether the learned CIT(Appeals) erred in law by upholding the unjustified ex-parte order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 144, which is against the principles of natural justice. (Mixed law and fact) Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that it now possesses evidence to support its claims. The assessee also contended that the ex-parte order was unjustified and against the principles of natural justice. Revenue's contentions: The learned DR relied on the orders of the authorities below.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 69

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI

Before: SH. SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SH. KRINWANT SAHAY

Hearing: 24/09/2026Pronounced: 29/09/2026

PER KRINWANT SAHAY AM

Appeal in this case has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 03.07.2024 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC New Delhi for the A.Y. 2017-18. Grounds of appeal are as under :-

1.

That on the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in law while upholding the unjustified exparte order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 144 and the additions of Rs 185,93,020/- u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act. Rs.2,32,68,230/-

2.

That on the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in law while upholding the unjustified exparte order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 144 and it is against the principles of natural justice.

3.

Tha

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →