UPES,NEW DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION/ ITO, DEHRADUN

PDF · subscribers
ITITA 233/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 July 2026AY 2023-243 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's non-compliance with the statutory notices of the First Appellate Authority, as evident from the assailed appellate orders. However, the Tribunal agreed with the justification provided by the assessee for the impugned non-compliance. Recognizing that no litigant benefits from the non-prosecution of their case, and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to remit the matters back to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication de novo. The CIT(A) was directed to provide an opportunity of being heard and to pass a speaking order. The assessee was cautioned that any future non-compliance with statutory notices would be viewed adversely. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, UPES, filed two appeals (ITA Nos. 232 and 233/DEL/2026) before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench. These appeals were against separate orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, New Delhi, dated 23.01.2026 and 29.01.2026, respectively. The orders were passed under section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Years 2022-23 and 2023-24. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) dismissed its case ex-parte, violating its right to natural justice. The assessee claimed it was prevented from complying with statutory notices due to compelling personal reasons, and that this non-compliance was neither intentional nor mala fide. The assessee requested the matter be remitted back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessee's right to natural justice was violated by the ex-parte dismissal of its appeals by the CIT(A) under section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Years 2022-23 and 2023-24? Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that the CIT(A) dismissed its case ex-parte, violating its right to natural justice. It claimed that compelling personal reasons prevented it from complying with the statutory notices issued by the CIT(A). The assessee asserted that its conduct was neither intentional nor mala fide and requested the matter be remitted back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, assuring full compliance henceforth. Revenue's contentions: The Senior Departmental Representative, while relying on the orders of the lower authorities, did not seriously oppose the assessee's request for remission.

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 BENCHES, ‘D’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Pronounced: 29.07.2026

आदेश / ORDER PER AMITABH SHUKLA, AM These twin appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the separate orders of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, New Delhi, dated 23.01.2026 and 29.01.2026, respectively passed under section u/s 201(1)/201(1A)of the Act for the Assessment Years 2022-23 and 2023-24. The word ‘Act’ herein this order would mean Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed its case ex-parte and thus its right to natural justice of being heard has been violated. The ld. Counsel submitted that the assessee was prevented by compelling 1

ITA Nos.232 & 233/DEL/2026 UPES

person reason were making requisite compliance to the statutory notices of ld. CIT(A). It was submitted that the impugned conduct of the assessee was neither intentional nor mala fide. It was accordingly requested that the matter be kindly considered for remission back to the ld. CIT(A) for adjudication de novo. The ld. Counsel personally ensured that full compliance shall now been made. 3. The ld. DR while relying upon the order of the lower authorities did not seriously oppose the move. 4. We have heard rival submissions in the light of material available on records. The misconduct of the assessee in not complying to the statutory notices of the ld. First Appellate Authority are evident from the assailed appellate orders dated 23.01.2026 and 29.01.2026. We are however in agreement with the justification tendered for the impugned non-compliance. We are also conscious of the fact that no litigant benefits by non-prosecution of its case. Accordingly in the interest of justice, we remit the matters back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for adjudication de novo in accordance with law, while according opportunity of being heard and by passing a speaking order. The assessee shall be bounden to comply with statutory notices issued and any non-compliance shall be adversely viewed. The appeals of the assessee are therefore allowed for statistical purposes. 5. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 27th July, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [SATBEER SINGH GODARA] [AMITABH SHUKLA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 29.07.2026 Shekhar Page 2 of 3

ITA Nos.232 & 233/DEL/2026 UPES

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 →