BRAHAM PRAKASH,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- WARD 36(1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 9099/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 September 2026AY 2021-223 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the ex-parte order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) was not sustainable. The Tribunal decided to dispose of the appeal by remitting the issue back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for consideration afresh. The Ld. CIT(A) was directed to grant an opportunity of being heard to the assessee, consider the case made out by the assessee, and pass a reasoned order. This reasoned order should be based on the evidence on record or any other evidence the assessee may choose to file during the hearing. The Tribunal rejected the application seeking adjournment. The principle derived is that an ex-parte order without affording a proper opportunity of hearing is liable to be set aside and the matter remitted for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Braham Prakash, filed an appeal against the order dated 15/10/2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi. This order was passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and arose from an Assessment Order dated 28/12/2022 passed by the Assessment Unit, Income-tax Department under Section 143(3) r.w. Section 144B of the Act for Assessment Year 2021-22. The appeal before the ITAT was heard on 24/06/2026 and pronounced on 21/09/2026. The ITAT noted that the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) was ex-parte.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without affording a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee, thereby violating principles of natural justice, concerning the assessment for AY 2021-22 under Section 143(3) r.w. Section 144B of the Act. Assessee's contention: The assessee implicitly argued for a fresh hearing before the Ld. CIT(A) by seeking an adjournment and by the Tribunal's ultimate decision to remit the matter. The core issue is the ex-parte nature of the CIT(A)'s order. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue before the ITAT. The revenue was represented by Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanetsa, SR (DR).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 143(3),Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI

Before: MS MADHUMITA ROY & SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY

For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanetsa, SR
Hearing: 24/06/2026Pronounced: 21/09/2026

1 ITA No. 9099/Del/2025 Braham Prakash Vs. ITO

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI

BEFORE MS MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No. 9099/Del/2025 (A.Y 2021-22) Braham Prakash Vs. Income Tax Officer, WP-17A, LIG Flat, Ward 36(1), Civic Pitampura Delhi Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: ABCPP4592R

Assessee by : Sh. Amarbir Singh Walia, CA Revenue by: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanetsa, SR (DR)

Date of Hearing 24/06/2026 Date of pronouncement 21/09/2026 O R D E R PER MADHUMITA ROY, JM: The instant appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the

order dated 15/10/2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-

tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi under Section

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’)

arising out of the Assessment Order dated 28/12/2022 passed by

the Assessment Unit, Income-tax Department under Section 143(3)

r.w. Section 144B of the Act for Assessment Year 2021-22.

2.

Having regard to the ex-parte order passed by the Ld. CIT(A),

we would like to dispose of this appeal for consideration of the same

afresh by the Ld. CIT(A). Thus, the application seeking adjournment

2 ITA No. 9099/Del/2025 Braham Prakash Vs. ITO

is also rejected. The appeal is disposed of by remitting the issue to

the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for his consideration afresh upon granting

an opportunity of being heard to the Assessee and upon considering

the case made out by the assessee and to finalize the issue by

passing a reasoned order upon considering the evidence on record or

any other evidence which the assessee may choose to file at the time

of hearing of the matter.

4.

In the result, the Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for

statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on 21/09/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (KRINWANT SAHAY) (MADHUMITA ROY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dated: 21/09/2026 R. Naheed, Sr PS Copy forwarded to

1.

Applicant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, New Delhi

3 ITA No. 9099/Del/2025 Braham Prakash Vs. ITO

More judgments on Section 144B

All 10,521 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →