HIMANSHU NARWAT,FARIDABAD vs. ITO, FARIDABAD

ITA 3154/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 September 2026AY 2016-173 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the impugned orders of the NFAC were passed ex-parte without affording the assessee a proper opportunity of hearing. While the Revenue contended that sufficient opportunities were provided, the Tribunal observed that notices were issued via the ITBA portal. The assessee had provided an email address in Form 35, but it was not explicitly stated that notices could be served via email. Consequently, it appeared that notices issued through e-proceedings might not have come to the assessee's knowledge. Therefore, the Tribunal found it to be an appropriate case to grant the assessee an opportunity to contest the matter on merits. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, with a direction to the NFAC to issue fresh notices to the assessee on the email address provided in Form 35 and thereafter pass a fresh order.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Himanshu Narwat, has filed appeals against the orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi. These orders were passed in relation to assessment years 2014-15, 2015-16, and 2016-17. The NFAC's orders were in appeal against the orders passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 147 read with Section 143(3) and Section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The appeals were filed against assessment orders dated March 30, 2022, and appellate orders dated January 31, 2026. The assessee contended that the impugned orders were passed ex-parte without providing an adequate opportunity of hearing.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned orders passed by the NFAC were ex-parte and violative of the principles of natural justice, specifically regarding the opportunity of hearing provided to the assessee under Section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the orders were passed ex-parte without affording a proper opportunity of hearing. The assessee had provided an email address in Form 35, but it was not specified that notices could be served via email, and it appeared that notices issued through the e-proceedings portal may not have come to the assessee's knowledge. Revenue's Contention: The Learned DR submitted that sufficient opportunities were given to the assessee. However, the Tribunal noted that while notices were issued on the ITBA portal on three occasions, the specific mode of service by email was not confirmed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 143(3),Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

Pronounced: 30.09.2026

PER SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

These appeals preferred by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the First Appellate Authority or ‘the ld. FAA’ for short) in appeals filed before him

ITA 3152 TO 3154/DEL/2026 HIMANSHU NARWAT

against the orders of the ld. Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. AO, for short) passed u/s 147 r.w.s 143(3) r.w.w u/s 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (herea

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 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →