Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee challenged an order of the Ld. CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2020-21. The assessee's counsel argued that the assessment order and the CIT(A) order were erroneous and liable to be quashed. However, the assessee had remained absent before the Ld. CIT(A).
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not participate in the proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A) and the appeal was dismissed without deciding on merits. Relying on documents not submitted earlier, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) in the interest of natural justice.
Key Issues
Whether the Ld. CIT(A) order is liable to be quashed for not deciding on merits, and if the matter should be remanded for fresh consideration after ensuring natural justice for the assessee.
Sections Cited
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘E’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S
( A.Y 2020-21) Deep Chand Har Prasad Vs ITO B-5, New Grain Market, Najafgarh, Ward-43(1) E-2 Block, New Delhi PAN: AAIFD1941M Civic Centre, New Delhi (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. Vijay Gupta, Adv Respondent by Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 25.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement 18.03.2026 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM:
In the present Appeal, Assessee has challenged the order dated 18/06/2025 passed by the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC’ for short), New Delhi pertaining to the Assessment Year 2020-21.
The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that assessment order as well as the order of the Ld. CIT(A) are erroneous and the same are liable to be quashed at the hands of the Tribunal. The Ld. Counsel made detail argument regarding dissolution of the Firm and passing of the respective orders contrary to the law. It is pertinent to note that the Assessee remained absent before the Ld. CIT(A) and no such submission or material has been brought on record by the Assessee before the Ld. CIT(A).
Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the Assessee being chronic defaulter not appeared before the Ld. CIT(A), thus sought for dismissing the Appeal.
We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. It is an undisputed fact that the Assessee has not participated in the proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A). The Appeal has been dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) without deciding on the merits. The Assessee has relied on certain documents before us which were not submitted before the Ld. CIT(A) and even before us assessee has not filed any application for admission of additional evidence. Therefore, those documents cannot be considered by us at this stage without their being proper application. Considering the fact that the Ld. CIT(A) has not decided the Appeal on its merits by deciding all the Grounds of Appeal and also considering the fact that the Assessee has not participated in the first Appellate proceedings, in the interest of natural justice, we remand the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the Appeal afresh on its merits in accordance with law after providing opportunity of being heard to the Assessee.
In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on this 18th Day of March, 2026