JYOTI CHAUHAN,NEW DELHI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER WARD 6(1), DELHI

ITA 6368/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 January 2026AY 2014-15Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, HON'BLE (Vice President), MRS. RENU JAUHRI, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee could not make proper compliance before the lower authorities due to preoccupation with her spouse's medical treatment, supported by medical reports. The Ld. DR did not object to restoring the matter.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the Ld. CIT/NFAC, Delhi. The original assessment was completed by the AO under section 147 r.w.s 144B, disallowing long-term capital gains exemption and making an addition under section 68. The appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte due to non-compliance with notices.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessment order passed under section 147 r.w.s 144B was without jurisdiction and contrary to law, and if the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without proper consideration.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10(38),Section 68,Section 115BBE,Section 147,Section 144B,Section 148,Section 148A(b),Section 148A(d),Section 149,Section 151A,Section 154,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, HON’BLE & MRS. RENU JAUHRI, HON’BLE

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Swaroop, Advocate, Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
For Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Hearing: 20.01.2026Pronounced: 20.01.2026

PER RENU JAUHRI : The above captioned appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 30.09.2025, passed by Ld. CIT/NFAC, Delhi u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as, “Act”) in Appeal No. NFAC/2013- 14/10295934 for A.Y. 2014-15. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1.That the assessment framed is without juri iction and contrary to law.

2.

That the Ld. AO has erred both on facts and on law in determining the total income of appellant at Rs. 2,01,23,938/- against the 6368_DEL_2025_Jyoti Chauhan vs AO Ward 6(1) declared income of Rs. 5,95,360/- in an order of asse

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 10(38)

All 3,113 judgments and leading authorities on Section 10(38) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →