M/S A K LANDCON PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-28, 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 noted the assessee's non-appearance and evasiveness during appellate proceedings. Considering the need for a fair hearing and the assessee's right to raise legal grounds, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A).
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal was against an order of the CIT(A) concerning assessment year 2020-21. The assessee failed to appear despite multiple notices, leading the CIT(A) to proceed ex-parte. The assessee also raised issues regarding the approval of assessment orders and the admission of digital evidence.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessment orders were valid without due approval and whether digital evidence was properly admitted during proceedings.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- CIT v. B.N. Bhattacharya & Another1,656 citing118 ITR 461 · 1997 · SC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, DELHI
Before: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL
This appeal preferred by the assessee against the order dated 14.08.2025 of Ld. CIT(A)-25, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the First Appellate Authority or ‘the ld. FAA’ for short) in DIN No :
ITBA/APL/M/250/2025-26/1079622627(1) arising out of the assessment
P a g e | M/s AK Landcon Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2020-21) order dated 15.02.2024 u/s 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) passed by DCIT, CC-28, New Delhi for AY: 2020- 21.
None has appeared for the assessee in spite of notices being issued for today. We have gone through the impugned orders and the ground as raised with the assistance of ld. DR and are of the considered view that no purpose will be served by any further notices as the impugned order passed by ld. First Appellate Authority indicates that due failure of assessee to appear in response to as many as 10 notices issued the ld. First Appellate Authority, relying decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. B.N. Bhattacharjee (1977) 118 ITR 461 (SC), ld.CIT(A) has proceeded ex-parte and though issue on merits have been touched but the same have not been considered as ld. First Appellate Authority has observed that during appellate proceedings, the appellant has also not complied and has been evasive and furnished no details and corroborative evidence in support of its contention contesting the additions made in the assessment orders.
Further, we find that that assessee has also raised an issue before us that assessment orders are without due approval u/s 153D of the Act and the P a g e | M/s AK Landcon Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2020-21) impugned orders show that when notice was issued for hearing on 08.04.2025 adjournment was sought on the basis that copy of approval u/s 153D has to be obtained. It appears that no effective ground in this regard was raised before ld. CIT(A). At the same time we find that assessee has also raised ground before us about the admission of digital evidence without following procedure laid down in Section 65B of the Indian evidence Act, 1872.
In the light of the aforesaid discussion we are of the considered view that matter requires to be sent back to the files of ld. CIT(A) to give fresh opportunity of hearing to the assessee wherein assessee can raise relevant legal ground and file submission in support of the merits too.
The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. The impugned order of ld. CIT(A) is set aside with consequences to follow as per the directions above.
Order pronounced in the open court on 11.02.2026
More judgments on Section 153C
- Neepaben Sunnybhai Motwani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, RajkotITA 875/RJT/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Neepaben Sunnybhai Motwani, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, RajkotITA 874/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
- Ajay Singh, Kota vs DCIT, Central Circle, KotaITA 495/JPR/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
- Dineshkumar Chhaganlal Manavadaria, Junagadh vs ITO Ward 1, JunagadhITA 837/RJT/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Sri Tatiparthy Venkata Swamy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 25 Oct 2026
- Piyush Shantilal Veera vs. State Of U.P.Allahabad · 23 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Pooja Shri Traders vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1Madras · 23 Oct 2026
- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026