ORION PACKWELL PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that some notices were returned unserved and there was no substantiation of service for the last notice. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed its return of income, and the AO framed an ex parte assessment, making an addition of Rs. 13,00,000. The CIT(A) also passed an ex parte order confirming the addition.
What were the issues?
Whether the ex parte orders passed by the lower authorities were justified without proper service of notices on the assessee.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. N.K. Saini
ORDER PER N.K.SAINI, AM : This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 01.03.2017 of CIT(A)- 7, New Delhi.
During the course of hearing nobody was present on behalf of the assessee neither any adjournment was sought. I, therefore, proceed ex-parte qua the assessee.
The grievance of the assessee in this appeal relates to the confirmation of addition of Rs. 13,00,000/- .
Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 30.10.2007 declaring an income of Rs. 1,04,770/-. The AO framed the assessment ex parte u/s 147 read with section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and made the addition of Rs. 13,00,000/- .
Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the ld. CIT(A) who passed the ex parte order by observing that the notice for hearing on 10.2.2017 was issued on 31.1.2017 which was not complied with. Now the assessee is in appeal.
Ld. DR submitted that the assessee did not appeared before the ld. CIT(A) inspite of various opportunities given so, there was no alternative except to decide the appeal ex parte.
I have considered the submission of the ld. DR and perused the material available on the record. In the present case, it is noticed that the Ld. CIT(A) himself admitted in para 3 of the impugned order that few of the notices returned back un- served. He also mentioned that the last notice dated 31.1.2017 was issued for hearing on 10.2.2017 but non-attended, however, nothing is brought on record to substantiate that the said notice was served upon the assessee. It is well settled that nobody should be condemned un-heard as per the maxim “Audi Alteram Pertam”. I, therefore, deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to be adjudicated afresh in accordance with the law. After providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Mahaveer Ispat Traders vs. Principal Commissioner Dgst Delhi Department Of Trade And Taxes Gnctd & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Modern Engineers And Contractors vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- K Madhusudan Reddy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Sandeep Ranjan Rout vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Gagan Bihari Rout@Gagan Rout vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026