M/S ADREM INDIA (P) LTD.,SOUTH DELH vs. SH. ANSHUL, DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-20, DELHI

ITA 5246/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 December 2025AY 2022-23Bench: SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)9 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex parte without providing an effective opportunity of hearing, which violates the principles of natural justice. The dismissal ex parte resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

What were the facts?

During a search operation, unaccounted cash receipts of the assessee company over various years were quantified. The Assessing Officer rejected the books of accounts and made an addition based on the seized documents and profit margin. The CIT(A) confirmed this addition ex parte.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex parte without granting an effective opportunity of hearing. Whether the addition made by the AO and confirmed by CIT(A) is sustainable.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 28,Section 132,Section 65B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate
Hearing: 16/12/2025Pronounced: 24/12/2025

PER RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN (J.M.):

1.

This appeal is filed by the assessee /appellant against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”], passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] dated 09.10.2024 for the A.Y. 2022-23, wherein the 1 M/s. Adrem India (P) Ltd. assessment order dated 31.03.2023 was upheld and the addition of Rs. 1,49,16,300/- made under section 28 of the Act was confirmed.

2.

The facts in brief as culled out from the order of the authorities below are that the appellant/assessee is a private limited company engag

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 28

All 1,686 judgments and leading authorities on Section 28 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →