NARENDER SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 43(2), NEW DELHI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found the assessee's grounds regarding the lack of a fair opportunity to be reasonable. The case was restored to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with a due opportunity to present their case and for the CIT(A) to pass a speaking order.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was decided ex parte. The assessee contended that the hearing was adjourned to a public holiday without proper notice, and therefore, they were not given a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The CIT(A) passed an ex parte order.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex parte order without providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147/148 were valid.
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-1’, NEW DELHI
Before: Ms. Suchitra KambleDr. B. R. R. Kumar
Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member:
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-15, New Delhi dated 07.06.2019.
Following grounds have been raised by the assessee:
“A. Ex Parte Order
The learned CIT (A) erred in passing the ex parte order without giving reasonable opportunity to the appellant.
2. The learned CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the date of hearing was fixed for 08.05.2019, on which date the authorized representative sought an adjournment and the hearing of the case was adjourned to 05.06.2019, which was a public holiday. No fresh notice of hearing was given and an ex parte 2 Narender Singh order was passed by learned CIT (A) on 07.06.2019. Therefore, the order passed by learned CIT (A), may be set aside. B. On Merit
3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] is bad both in the eye of law and on facts.
4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law, in ignoring the fact that the initiation of proceedings under Section 147 read with Section 148 are bad in law as the conditions and procedure prescribed under the statute have not been satisfied and complied with.
On the facts and circumstances of the case, Id. CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in confirming the order of the AO despite the fact that the assessment proceedings initiated by the learned AO are bad in the eyes of law as the reasons recorded for the issue of notice under Section 148 are bad in the eye of law and are vague.
On the facts and circumstances of the case, Id. CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in confirming the order of the AO despite the fact that assessment proceedings initiated by the learned AO are bad in the eye of law as there is no nexus between the reasons recorded and the belief formed by the Assessing Officer.
On the facts and circumstances of the case, the reasons recorded for reopening are bad in law, as the same have been recorded without independent application of mind on the part of the Assessing Officer.
On the facts and circumstances of the case, Id. CIT(A)has erred both on facts and in law, that no proper approval as per section 151 having been 3 Narender Singh taken, the proceedings become bad in law and liable to be quashed.
On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming the addition of an amount of Rs. 10,40,000/-, being cash deposited in the bank account of the assessee under Section 68 of Income Tax Act, 1961.
On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming the addition of entire amount of Rs. 10,40,000/- deposited in bank, without taking into account the amount of cash withdrawn from the bank during the same period.”
On going through the record, we find that the primary contention of the assessee was that the case was adjourned to a public holiday and could not get fair opportunity of being heard. We find that the grounds taken up by the assessee are reasonable enough, necessitating the case to be restored back to the file of the ld. CIT (A) with directions to provide due opportunity to the assessee before passing a speaking order.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee allowed for statistical purposes. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 29/06/2021.
More judgments on Section 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Abd Maestro Private Limited vs. Great Galleon Ventures LTDDelhi · 3 Nov 2026
- Jangeer Singh Trading As Jangeer Singh Kabulshah Agriculture Works vs. Yogesh Jangid Trading As Jangid Agro Engineering & Anr.Delhi · 3 Nov 2026
- Rabindranath Behera vs. The Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, OdishaOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- Dinesh Dash vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S.Ishwar Chandra Barik, Keonjhar vs. Commissioner(Appeal), GST, Central Excise And Customs, BhubaneswarOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
