MADAN PAL,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO WARD-2(1)(3), GHAZIABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3760/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 December 2025AY 2015-16Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member), SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) passed the order ex-parte without hearing the Assessee and did not decide all grounds of appeal on merits. Therefore, the matter was remanded.

What were the facts?

The Assessee filed an appeal against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) which dismissed the appeal. The assessment order had computed income higher than the returned income.

What were the issues?

Whether the Ld. CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice by passing an ex-parte order without providing an opportunity of being heard to the Assessee.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI

For Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Hearing: 17/12/2025Pronounced: 29/12/2025

(A.Y 2015-16) Madan Pal Vs ITO Village Mehrauli, Kavi Nagar, Ward 2(1) (3), Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh Ghaziabad, PAN: AJRPP4950E Uttar Pradesh Appellant Respondent Assessee by Sh. Samyak Jain, Adv Revenue by Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 17/12/2025 Date of Pronouncement 29/12/2025 ORDER

PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM:

1.

The present appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC’ for short), New Delhi dated 19/02/2025 for the Assessment Year 2015-16.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that, an assessment order came to be passed on 28/03/2023 by computing the income of the Assessee at Rs. 52,27,460/-, as against the returned income of Rs. 22,98,10/- by making certain additions. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 28/03/2023, Assessee preferred the Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 19/02/2025, dismissed the Appeal filed by the Assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Assessee preferred the present Appeal.

3.

The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee vehemently submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has provided no opportunity of being heard to the Assessee and in violation of principals of natural justice, dismissed the appeal of the Assessee.

4.

Per contra, the Ld. Ld. Departmental Representative relying on the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) sought for dismissal of the Appeal.

5.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. It can be seen from the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the impugned order has been passed ex-parte without hearing the Assessee. It is further observed that while deciding the Appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) has not decided all the grounds of Appeal of the Assessee on its merits. Considering the facts that the Assessee has not participated in the first Appellate proceedings, in the interest of natural justice, we remand the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the Appeal afresh on its merits in accordance with law after providing opportunity of being heard to the Assessee.

6.

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →