AMIT YADAV vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 44(1), CIVIC CENTRE, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA/513/2026HC DelhiDLHC01028796202609 July 2026Author: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the order passed by the Tribunal did not warrant any interference. While acknowledging some substance in the appellant's contention that the appeal was argued on the ground of non-service of notice, the Court found it unlikely that the appellant would have conceded to a remand to the CIT(A) if the matter were that simple, especially given the Tribunal's delay in passing the order. The Court observed that the Tribunal's order had to be considered as it appeared. The appeal was rejected, and the appellant was informed that he could move an application before the Tribunal in accordance with law if he wished. All pending applications were also disposed of.

What were the facts?

The appellant, Amit Yadav, filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenging an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal). The Tribunal's order, dated 29.01.2026, had remanded the matter back to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] because the CIT(A)'s original order was passed ex-parte. The appellant contended that no notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued to him, and therefore, the Tribunal should have set aside the assessment order or remanded it to the Assessing Officer, not the CIT(A). The Revenue argued that the Tribunal's order was short and that the remand to the CIT(A) was at the appellant's own request, a contention the appellant denied.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in remanding the matter to the CIT(A) when the appellant contended that no notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was served, and if so, whether the remand should have been to the Assessing Officer or the assessment order set aside. Assessee's Contention: The appellant argued that since there was no proof of service of notice under Section 148, the Tribunal ought to have set aside the assessment order or, at the very least, remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer, not the CIT(A). Revenue's Contention: The Revenue argued that the Tribunal's order was a short one and that the remand to the CIT(A) was made at the request of the appellant himself. The Revenue contended that the appellant's current arguments did not emanate from the Tribunal's order and that no such argument was advanced before the Tribunal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
$~53 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 513/2026, CM APPL. 42418/2026 & CM APPL. 42419/2026 AMIT YADAV .....Appellant Through: Mr. Bhimanshu Kansal, Advocate. versus INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 44(1), CIVIC CENTRE, NEW DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Puneet Rai, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Ashvini Kr. and Mr. Rishabh Nangia, JSC. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA

O R D E R % 09.07.2026

1.

The instant appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as to ‘the Act of 1961’) is directed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) dated 29.01.2026, whereby the Tribunal has remanded the matter back to the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [‘hereinafter referred to as CIT (A)’] for hearing the appeal as it found that the order of the CIT (A) was Ex Parte.

2.

Mr. Bhimanshu Kansal, learned Counsel for the appellant asserted that no notice under Section 148 of the Act of 1961 was issued to the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/07/2026 at 15:36:51

appellant/assessee and in this regard, he invited the Court’s attention towards page No. 61 of the paper book. He submitted that when there is no proof of service, the Tribunal ought to have set aside the assessment order or in worst case scenario should have remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer and not to CIT (A).

3.

Mr. Puneet Rai, learned Senior Standing Counsel invited Court’s attention towards the short impugned order that has been passed by the Tribunal and highlighted that the matter came to be remanded to the Ld. CIT (A) at the request of the appellant himself. He submits that what is being argued by learned Counsel for the appellant does not emanate from the order of the Tribunal, and no such argument seems to have been advanced.

4.

Learned Counsel for the appellant at this juncture, interjected and submitted that he himself had appeared before the Tribunal and he never made such a request to the Tribunal and as a matter of fact, he had argued the appeal on the very same ground which is being agitated before this Court.

5.

Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the order as passed by the Tribunal does not call for any interference. We, however, find some substance in contention of the appellant that the appeal was argued on the ground that the notice was not served upon the appellant/assessee.

6.

Had it been so simple that the appellant had conceded for remanding the matter back to the CIT (A), there was no occasion for the Tribunal to reserve the order and keep it pending for about 45 days to pass such an innocuous order. Be that as it may, the order passed by the Tribunal has to be considered as it appears.

7.

The appellant, if so wishes, can move an application before the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/07/2026 at 15:36:51

Tribunal in accordance with law, the appeal is, however, rejected. All pending applications also stand disposed of. DINESH MEHTA, J. RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA, J. JULY 9, 2026/MR This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/07/2026 at 15:36:51

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →