PARVEEN GUPTA,DELHI vs. ACIT , DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not complied with the statutory notices issued by the CIT(A). However, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard.
What were the facts?
The appeals were filed by the assessee against the order passed by the CIT(A) which arose from the Assessment Order. The assessment order was passed on account of incriminating documents seized during search proceedings. The assessee had not attended before the CIT(A), leading to an ex-parte order.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee should be granted an opportunity of being heard by the CIT(A) despite non-compliance with statutory notices.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘F’: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA
PER BENCH The above captioned appeal filed by the assessee are directed against the order passed by CIT(A)-29, New Delhi arising out the order passed by Assessment Order pertaining to A.Ys. 2011-12, 2013-14 and 2014-15 respectively.
All the three appeals filed by the assessee are on identical facts and hence for the purposes of convenience the same were heard together and are being adjudicated by his common order. Since,as admitted by Ld. DR, the facts are identical for all the assessment years, save for variations in figures, the decision taken in shall apply Mutatis Mutandis in also.
None appeared on behalf of the assessee. The Ld. DR informed that the assessment order was passed on account of incriminating document seized in search proceedings in the case of one Shri Pradeep Goyal. The Ld. DR invited our attention to para 4 of the order of Ld. CIT(A) for A.Y. 2011- 12 contested vide to submit that the assessee had not attended before the Ld. First appellate leading to passing of an exparte order by him.
We have considered the submissions of the Ld. DR and are of the view that the assessee has indeed not complied with the statutory notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A). However, in a interest of justice we are the considered view that the assessee should be given by the Ld. CIT(A) before concluding the matter. We are conscious of the fact that no litigant benefits by non-prosecuting its case. Accordingly, the matter is set aside to be filed of Ld. CIT (A) for fresh adjudication after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee shall comply with the notices and any non-compliance may be adversely viewed. The grounds of the appeal raised by the asseessee is allowed for the statistical purposes.
As facts of the case for are identical to those in , the decision taken in ITA no. 502/Del/2024 shall apply Mutatis Mutandis in ITA no. 504/Del/2024 also.
ITA no. 504/Del/2024 are also remitted back to Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. In the result the appeal of the assessee vide are allowed for the statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 21.03.2025
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- J.M.Swamy vs. Government Of INDIAKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Acc LTD. vs. Secy.Industries Deptt.Orissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Kumaran Transports (Tuticorin) Private Limited vs. The Assistant Commissioner Madras · 16 Oct 2026