ASHISH SINGH HUF,DELHI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4106/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 October 2026AY 2020-216 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex-parte due to the assessee's absence and non-filing of written submissions, thereby confirming the AO's ex-parte assessment order. The assessee's representative requested the restoration of the matter to the file of the AO. The Tribunal, after examining the record and rival contentions, observed that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal in the absence of the assessee. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders of the CIT(A) and the AO. The matter was restored to the file of the AO for a fresh decision in accordance with the law, after affording a fair opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The Tribunal did not decide on the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee, specifically regarding the classification of income and the validity of reopening.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Ashish Singh HUF, is in appeal against the order dated 27.02.2026 passed by the CIT(A) which upheld the assessment order dated 06.01.2025 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 147 read with section 144 read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for Assessment Year 2020-21. The AO made an addition of Rs. 57,15,604/-. The assessee had filed an ITR of Rs. 8,990/-. The reopening was based on information that the assessee received interest other than interest on securities under Section 94A of Rs. 57,15,604/- from Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority. Despite various notices issued during the assessment proceedings, the assessee failed to submit any submissions. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal vide an ex-parte order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing a non-speaking order in violation of Section 250(6) of the Act, by failing to frame specific points for determination and adjudicate grounds with reasons? 2. Whether the CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating specific grounds raised by the appellant, including jurisdictional, legal, and factual grounds, thereby vitiating the appellate order? 3. Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on account of alleged non-compliance/non-prosecution, contrary to settled law that the appellate authority must decide on merits irrespective of the appellant's appearance? 4. Whether the CIT(A) order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice by not granting an effective opportunity of hearing? 5. Whether the CIT(A) erred in mechanically confirming the AO's order without independent application of mind and without dealing with the material on record? 6. Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 57,15,604/- as 'Income from Other Sources' when the amount was received against relinquishment of rights in a capital asset (Plot at Yamuna Expressway), which should be taxed under 'Capital Gains'? 7. Whether the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessee had disclosed the transaction of surrender of plot and offered it under 'Capital Gains'? 8. Whether the CIT(A) erred in upholding the reopening under Section 147 based on 'borrowed satisfaction' from the Insight Portal without independent application of mind and proper adjudication of jurisdictional challenge? Assessee's contentions: The CIT(A) passed a non-speaking and arbitrary order, violating principles of natural justice and Section 250(6) of the Act. The appeal was dismissed on non-compliance without deciding on merits. The addition was wrongly classified as 'Income from Other Sources' instead of 'Capital Gains', and the assessee had offered it under the correct head. Reopening under Section 147 was based on borrowed satisfaction and jurisdictional challenges were not adjudicated. The assessee prayed for restoration of the matter to the AO. Revenue's contentions: The assessee failed to comply with notices during departmental proceedings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 94A,Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI

Before: SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN & SHRI VIMAL KUMAR

For Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Hearing: 12/08/2026Pronounced: 23/10/2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI (DELHI BENCH ‘F’ NEW DELHI)

BEFORE SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA No. 4106/DEL/2026 (A.Y. 2020-21) Ashish Singh HUF Vs Assessment Unit B-1, Kalindi Colony, New Delhi Delhi, New Delhi

�थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: AAAHA5555J Appellant .. Respondent

Assessee by None Revenue by Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 12/08/2026 Date of Pronouncement 23/10/2026

ORDER PER VIMAL KUMAR, JM:

The appeal filed by the Appellant/assessee is against order dated

27.02.2026 of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi

[hereinafter referred to as “the CIT(A)”] under section 250 of the Income

Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) arising out of

assessment order dated 06.01.2025 of Ld. Assessing

Officer/Assessment Unit (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Ld. AO’) u/s

147 read with Section 144 read with Section 144B of the Act for A.Y. 2020-21.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that, the Assessee filed ITR of Rs. 8,990/.

As per information in the case of the Assessee on Insight portal. The

Assessee had received interest other than interest on securities under

Section 94A of Rs. 57,15,604/- from Yamuna Expressway Industrial

Development Authority and the total interest payable banking company

HDFC Bank Limited amounting to Rs. 8,990/-, on reopening the case

under Section 147 of the Act. Notice under Section 148 of the Act dated

23.03.2204 was issued. Intimation under Section 144B dated

28.06.2024, notices under Section 142(1) dated 31.07.2024, 04.09.2024

letter to the Assessee dated 20.09.2024 Centralized Communication

dated 04.10.2024 show cause notice under Section 144 of the Act dated

15.10.2021 and show cause notice dated 25.12.2024 were issued. The

Assessee failed to submit any submissions. On completion of

proceedings Ld.AO vide order dated 06.01.2025 made addition of Rs.

57,15,604/-.

3.

Against order dated 06.01.2025 of Ld. AO, the Assessee filed

appeal before Ld. CIT(A) which was dismissed vide order dated

27.02.2026.

4.

Being aggrieved appellant/assessee preferred present appeal on

following grounds:-

“1. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in passing the impugned order in violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 250(6) of the Act, inasmuch as no specific points for determination have been framed, nor have the grounds of appeal been adjudicated with reasons, rendering the order non-speaking, arbitrary and liable to be quashed

2.

That the learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in not adjudicating the specific grounds raised by the appellant, including jurisdictional, legal and factual grounds, thereby vitiating the entire appellate order.

3.

That the learned CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal on account of alleged non-compliance/non-prosecution, which is contrary to settled law, as the first appellate authority is duty-bound to decide the appeal on merits irrespective of appearance of the appellant.

4.

That the impugned order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice, inasmuch as no effective and meaningful opportunity of being heard was granted to the appellant.

5.

That the learned CIT(A) has erred in mechanically confirming the order of the Assessing Officer without independent application of mind and without dealing with the material available on record, including the statement of facts, submissions and issues involved in the appeal, thereby rendering the order arbitrary and unsustainable.

6.

That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of ₹57,15,604/- as 'Income from Other Sources' by failing to appreciate that the amount was received against the relinquishment of rights in a capital asset (Plot

at Yamuna Expressway). Such receipts are legally taxable only under the head 'Capital Gains' and not 'Income from Other Source”

7.

That the learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the appellant had duly disclosed the transaction of surrender of plot and offered the same under the head “Capital Gains”, and without examining the nature of transaction, has wrongly confirmed the addition under the head “Income from Other Sources”.

8.

That the learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the reopening of assessment under Section 147 based on 'borrowed satisfaction' from the Insight Portal without independent application of mind without properly adjudicating the jurisdictional challenge, and therefore the reassessment proceedings are bad in law and void ab initio.

9.

That the assessee reserves the right to add, amend, alter the grounds of appeal.”

5.

The Ld. Representative for appellant/assessee submitted that Ld.

CIT(A) vide ex-parte order dated. 27.02.2026 dismissed the appeal. The

matter may be restored to the file of Ld. AO.

6.

The Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the Assessee

failed to comply with notices during departmental proceedings.

7.

From examination of record, in light of aforesaid rival contention, it

is crystal clear that the Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 27.02.2026 dismised

the appeal in absence of assessee and non-filing of written submissions.

Ex-pate assessment order dated 06.01.2025 was confirmed.

Appellant/assessee has prayed for restoration of the matter to the file of

Ld. AO.

8.

In view of the above material facts in the interest of justice

impugned orders dated 27.02.2026 of Ld. CIT(A) and 06.01.2205 of Ld.

AO are set aside and the matter is restored to the file of Ld. AO for fresh

decision in accordance with law after affording a fair opportunity of

hearing to the appellant/assessee.

9.

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical

purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 23rd OCTOBER, 2026

Sd/- Sd/- (S RIFAUR RAHMAN) (VIMAL KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Date:- 23 .10.2026 Reshma Naheed, Sr.P.S Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT Digitally signed SHASHI by SHASHI KANT KANT PANDEY Date: PANDEY 2026.10.27 ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 17:30:15 +05'30' ITAT, NEW DELHI

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →