IT J RETAILS PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT CC-25, DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution without hearing the assessee, despite opportunities granted. The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee did not file submissions before the Ld. CIT(A). However, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal deemed it proper to restore the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). The Tribunal directed the Ld. CIT(A) to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its claim and decide the issue on merits as per facts and law. The assessee was also directed to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) and cooperate in the proceedings. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes. No issue was expressly left undecided.
What were the facts?
The assessee, ITJ Retails Pvt Ltd., is in appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-29, New Delhi, dated 13-02-2026. This order arose from an assessment order dated 16-05-2023 passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2017-18. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 69,72,000/- based on information from the Insight portal, flagging bogus Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) from shares allegedly issued with ante-dated forged contract notes. This information stemmed from a search in the case of Trade Next Securities Ltd. The assessee was also identified as a beneficiary of non-genuine LTCG. Statutory notices were issued, but no reply was filed by the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal for non-prosecution.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without affording the assessee an opportunity of being heard, thereby violating principles of natural justice, as contended by the assessee? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the Ld. CIT(A) passed the order in the absence of the assessee and without hearing the assessee. The assessee relied on the principle of natural justice. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue contended that the Ld. CIT(A) passed the order on merits based on the material available on record. The Revenue did not provide specific authorities or precedents in support of their argument.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “F”, DELHI
Before: SH. SUDHIR KUMAR & SH. MANISH AGARWAL
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”, DELHI
BEFORE SH. SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No.3775/DEL/2026 Assessment Year: 2017-18 ITJ Retails Pvt Ltd. Vs. Assessing Officer, 319, Plot No. 18 3rd Floor Central Circle-25 Delhi Rajendra Jaina Tower Community Centre Wazipur Industrial Area North West Delhi-110052 PAN No. AAFCA7530F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)
Appellant by Sh. Vinieet Garg, CA (VC) Respondent by Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr.DR
Date of hearing: 25/08/2026 Date of Pronouncement: 25/08/2026 ORDER PER SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-29 New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as (“Ld.CIT(A)”] vide order dated 13-02-2026 arising out the assessment order dated 16-05-2023 u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act 1961 (in short “the Act” pertaining to A.Y. 2017-18.
The brief facts of the case are that as per the information available on Insight portal & flagged by the Directorate of Income Tax (System) as per risk profiling, the information relating to report on bogus LTCG reputed stocked by issuing ante dated forged contracts notes. It has been stated in the said report that during the search in the case of Trade Next Securities Ltd. (erstwhile Lifeline Securities Ltd) along with Kundu Group and it is found that relevant parties are available exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act on LTCG. As per the information bogus contract notes for purchases of shares were found and various benefiters have taken accommodation entries of Non-genuine LTCG by paying a commission of 2% ITJ retails Pvt. Ltd. is also a beneficiary of bogus LTCG. Statutory notices on the various date were issued to the assessee but no reply was filed. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment after making the addition of Rs. 69,72,000/- and penalty proceedings also initiated. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred the appeal before Ld. CIT(A), who vide order dated 13-02- 2026 dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. Being aggrieved the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before the tribunal on the various grounds. 4. The ld. AR of the assessee submitted that Ld. CIT(A) passed the order in the absence of the assessee. The order was passed without being heard to the assessee. The Ld. DR of the Revenue submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) passed the order on merits based on the material available on record.
We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. It is an admitted fact that despite opportunities granted by Ld. CIT(A), the assessee did not file his submissions before him, for which the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non- prosecution. 6. Since in the instant case the Ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal without being heard to the assessee, therefore, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its claim and decide the issue as per fact and law. The assessee is also directed to appear before the Ld.CIT(A) and co- operate in the proceedings. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 25.08.2026.
Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH AGARWAL) (SUDHIR KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (JUDICIAL MEMBER) SR Bhatnagar Date: 24.09.2026 Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) ` 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT DELHI
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- U Days Garments vs. The Adjudication OfficerMadras · 16 Oct 2026
- M/S Jsw Cement Limited,Jajpur vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sreeshobi Enterprises vs. The Appellate AuthorityMadras · 16 Oct 2026
- S.T.Promotors vs. The Commercial Tax OfficerMadras · 16 Oct 2026
- Prashanti Das (M/S. Panchamukhi Enterprises) vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Jagatsinghpur CircleOrissa · 16 Oct 2026