YOGESH KUMAR,LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SH. GAYA PRASAD VILL. NAGLA SUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2)(2), FIROZABAD, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, FIROZABAD

ITA 685/AGR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Agra12 October 2026AY 2013-143 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the impugned order passed by the CIT(A)/NFAC was liable to be set aside due to the violation of the principles of natural justice. While acknowledging the non-cooperative conduct of the assessee and the ex-parte nature of both the assessment order and the first appellate order, the Tribunal deemed it just and appropriate to restore the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication on merits. The Tribunal directed the assessee to be diligent and cooperative in attending hearings and making submissions before the AO for expeditious disposal. The AO was also directed to ensure observance of the principles of natural justice. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Yogesh Kumar (Legal heir of Late Sh. Gaya Prasad), filed an appeal against an order dated 10.08.2026 passed by the CIT(A)/NFAC. This order confirmed an addition of Rs. 36,16,000/- as Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG). The addition was made by the Assessing Officer (AO) in an assessment order dated 29.09.2021, passed under sections 144/147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2013-14. The CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte. The assessee's appeal to the ITAT was based on the ground that the impugned order was passed without affording sufficient opportunity of hearing, violating principles of natural justice. The ITAT noted that the first appellate authority had issued several notices to the assessee, which were not responded to, leading to the ex-parte order by the CIT(A). The assessment order itself was also passed ex-parte.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned order passed by the CIT(A)/NFAC is liable to be set aside for violation of the principles of natural justice, as the assessee was not afforded sufficient opportunity of hearing? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the CIT(A) passed the impugned order without providing a sufficient opportunity for hearing, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. The assessee relied on the general principles of natural justice. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that several notices were issued by the first appellate authority to the assessee, and the assessee did not respond to them. The CIT(A) was compelled to pass an ex-parte order due to the non-cooperative conduct of the assessee. The revenue did not explicitly present counter-arguments on the violation of natural justice but highlighted the assessee's non-compliance.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 144,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA (SMC

Before: SUNIL KUMAR SINGHBRAJESH KUMAR SINGH

For Appellant: Shri Rohti Singhal, CA
For Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr (DR)
Hearing: 12.10.2026Pronounced: 12.10.2026

PER:SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, J.M.

This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 10.08.2026 passed in appeal No NFAC/2012-13/10068185 by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax/ NFAC(Delhi) [(hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)] u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for the A.Y. 2013-14, wherein ld CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s appeal ex-parte, confirming an addition of Rs. 36,16,000/- as LTCG made vide assessment order dated 29.09.2021 passed u/s 144/147 of the Act.

2.

This second appeal has been preferred by the assessee on the ground in addition to many others that the impugned order has been passed without affording sufficient opportunity of heari

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 →