NARESH KUMAR AGARWAL,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-28(1), DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the previous order was indeed passed without providing the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard. It ruled that granting such an opportunity would not prejudice the revenue. Thus, the matter was remanded to the Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication (de novo) after duly notifying the assessee and allowing them to present their submissions.
What were the facts?
The assessee appealed against an NFAC order, contending that the order passed under section 144 of the Act was issued without granting an adequate opportunity of hearing. The appeal also challenged additions concerning alleged export sales, duty drawback, and long-term capital gains where indexation of the cost of acquisition was disallowed.
What were the issues?
Whether the lower authorities erred by dismissing the appeal and confirming additions under section 144 of the Act without providing the assessee adequate opportunity of hearing.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI
Before: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar,
ORDER
Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member:
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 01.06.2023.
Following grounds have been raised by the assessee:
“On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) at NFAC, Delhi erred in - i. dismissing appeal against order passed u/s 144 of the Act without providing due and adequate opportunity of hearing; ii. confirming following additions made to the returned income - a. Rs. 18,50,063/- on account of alleged export sales to M/s Green Fields Naresh Kumar Agarwal b. Rs.25,761/-on account of duty drawback allegedly received on export sales made to Green Fields Industries; c. Rs. 5,17,20,125/- on account of long term capital gains earned without allowing index cost of acquisition and improvement thereby taxing the total sale consideration.”
At the outset, we find that the order has been passed without providing due and adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The ld. AR pleaded that, given an opportunity due compliance would be made. The ld. DR objected in principle. On going through the record, we are of considered view that no prejudice would be caused to the revenue if an opportunity of being heard is given to the assessee. Hence, the matter is remanded to the ld. CIT(A), with directions to adjudicate the appeal de novo, after due issue of notice of hearing to the assessee to file their submissions.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 24/05/2024.
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
