DEEPSHIKHA NEGI,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 43(5), NEW DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) to grant the assessee one more opportunity to present her case. The assessee was directed to appear and substantiate her case without seeking adjournments.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) due to non-compliance and an incomplete address, preventing proper service of notices. The assessee had challenged a disallowance of Rs. 4,56,707/- on account of derivative transactions.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal without deciding on merits due to the assessee's non-appearance and address issues.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH : SMC : NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI R.K. PANDA
BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2016-17 Deepshikha Negi, Vs. ITO, 103, DDA Flats, Ward-43(5), Dwarka Sec.2, New Delhi. Pocket-1, New Delhi. PAN: AFMPN4074Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri S.K. Goyal, CA Revenue by : Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 04.08.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 04.08.2021 ORDER This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 17th June, 2019 of the CIT(A)-15, New Delhi, relating to Assessment Year 2016-17.
The assessee in her grounds of appeal has challenged the order of the CIT(A) in confirming the disallowance of Rs.4,56,707/- on account of derivative trnsaction.
Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and filed her return of income on 30th July, 2016 declaring the total income at Rs.2,63,170/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS to verify whether the investment and income relating to securities (derivative transactions) are duly disclosed. Subsequently, notice u/s 143(2) was issued and served upon the assessee. Further, a questionnaire along with notice u/s 142(1) was also issued to the assessee. However, there was no compliance from the side of the assessee. The AO, therefore, invoking the provisions of section 144 of the Act, determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.8,25,912/- being 0.5% of the total transactions to the tune of Rs.16,51,02,530/-. The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A), however, the ld.CIT(A) noted that the return was filed by the husband of the assessee. Further, the address in Form No.35 was incomplete. Therefore, notice was sent by speed post and the same was received back unserved with the postal remark ‘incomplete address.’ In view of the above and in absence of any details before him, the ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee.
Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the ld.CIT(A) has not decided the appeal on merit and has dismissed due to non-appearance by the assessee. He submitted that given an opportunity, the assessee is in a position to explain her case before the CIT(A). The ld. DR has no objection to the same.
Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, I deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to substantiate her case and decide the issue as per fact and law. The assessee is also hereby directed to appear before the CIT(A) and substantiate her case without seeking any adjournment under any pretext, failing which the ld.CIT(A) is at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. I hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.
More judgments on Section 142(1)
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Subhash Chand Saini, Jaipur vs ITO Ward, Behror, BherorITA 36/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Venish Vinodray Lalani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, MorbiITA 197/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Gaurav Jiteshbhai Joshi, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1000/RJT/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Maruti Nandan Minetech Private Limited vs. The Joint CommissionerRajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Rentex Polymers Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxDelhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Shila Traders vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Ashish Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner Gsto Ward No. 86Delhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bhanwal Trading And Company vs. The Union Of INDIARajasthan · 28 Oct 2026