MUJAHID,BULAND SHAHR vs. DCIT, GHAZIABAD

ITA 3884/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 January 2026AY 2017-183 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that both the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) had passed ex-parte orders. The Ld. CIT(A) had also failed to discuss the issues on merits appropriately, upholding the AO's action and dismissing the appeal, which was deemed unsustainable in law. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to remit the disputed issues back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). The directions were for the Ld. CIT(A) to pass a speaking order on the disputed issues after providing an adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Ld. DR had no objection to this course of action. The assessee was also directed to fully cooperate with the Ld. CIT(A). The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes. The decision for AY 2015-16 was to apply mutatis mutandis to the other assessment years.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Mujahid, filed six appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) challenging the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Noida. These appeals pertain to assessment years 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, and 2020-21. The assessee's primary contention was that the Assessing Officer (AO) and the Ld. CIT(A) passed ex-parte and non-speaking orders without providing sufficient opportunity to be heard, violating principles of natural justice. The Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeals for non-prosecution without deciding the matters on merits.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the ex-parte and non-speaking orders passed by the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) are sustainable in law, particularly concerning the principles of natural justice and the requirement for adequate opportunity of being heard (mixed question of law and fact). Assessee's contentions: The Assessing Officer passed an ex-parte order without giving sufficient opportunity. Similarly, the Ld. CIT(A) passed an ex-parte and non-speaking order, dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without deciding the matter on merits, which is against the principles of natural justice. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue, through the Ld. DR, did not object to the remittance of the issues back to the Ld. CIT(A).

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN & SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR

For Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT(DR)

Hearing: 08/1/2026Pronounced: 14/1/2026

ORDER PER BENCH

This bunch of 06 appeals filed by the assessee are preferred against the separate orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A)-3, Noida [for short hereinafter referred to as the “(Ld. CIT(A)”] relevant to assessment years 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 2019-20 & 2020-21 respectively. Since all the appeals are relating to the same assessee, hence, 1 the same were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience, by dealing with the assessment year 2015-16 being the lead case.

At the outset, it is submitted by the Ld. AR that AO has passed the exparte order without giving sufficient opportunity to the assessee. It was further submitted that similarly has passed the exparte order and non-speaking order, which is against the principles of natural justice as the same has been passed without affording reasonable and adequate opportunity of being hard, dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of non-prosecution and even not decided the matter on merits appropriately and passed the non-speaking order in the case.

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the records. Upon careful consideration, we find that in this case the AO has passed the exparte order and Ld. CIT(A) has also passed the exparte order and even not discussed the issues on merits appropriately, however, he upheld the action of the AO, and dismissed the appeal, which is not sustainable in law. Hence, in the interest of justice, we remit back the issues in dispute to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with the directions to pass a speaking order on the issues in dispute, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, for which ld. DR has no objection. Assessee is also directed to fully cooperate with the Ld. CIT(A) during the proceedings. Accordingly, the (AY 2015-16) is allowed for statistical purposes.

Our aforesaid decision taken in assessment year 2015-16 will apply mutatis mutandis to other remaining appeals viz.

3884, 3885, 3886 & 3887/Del/2025 relevant to assessment years 2016-17 to 2020-21.

In the result, all these 06 Assessee’s appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →