Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed its return of income, and an assessment order was subsequently passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B, making an addition of Rs. 22,70,000/-. The assessee's appeal against this order was dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee then appealed to the ITAT, contending that both the AO and CIT(A) failed to provide sufficient opportunity of being heard and did not consider the replies filed.
Held
The ITAT observed that the Assessing Officer passed the assessment order without considering the assessee's replies, and the CIT(A) also did not adjudicate the appeal on merits after providing proper opportunities. Consequently, the ITAT restored the entire issue to the file of the AO for a de-novo assessment, directing the AO to duly consider the assessee's replies and afford a fresh opportunity of being heard.
Key Issues
Whether the lower authorities erred in denying sufficient opportunity of being heard and not considering the assessee's replies during assessment and first appeal proceedings, thus violating principles of natural justice.
Sections Cited
143(3), 144B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘B’: NEW DELHI
(ASSESSMENT YEAR 2022-23) M/s Royalux Lighting LLP Assessment Unit, J-12/76, Rajouri Garden, Income Tax Department, Delhi-110027. Vs. Delhi. PAN-AARFR5468E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Mr. Vibhu Gupta, Advocate Respondent by Mr. Anuj Garg, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 18.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement 17.12.2025 ORDER
PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JM:
This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”, for short], dated 04/03/2025 for Assessment Year 2022-23.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income declaring total income of Rs.19,32,260/-, assessment order came to be passed Royalux Lighting LLP vs. Assessment Unit u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act (‘the Act’ for short) by making the addition of Rs.22,70,000/-.
Against the assessment order dated 21.03.2024, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 04.03.2025, dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
As against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 04.03.2025, Assessee preferred the present appeal. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently submitted that the AO has not provided sufficient opportunity to the assessee and the reply of the assessee has not been considered by the AO. Further submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has also not adjudicated the appeal of the assessee on merits by providing opportunities of being heard to the assessee. Thus, sought for allowing the appeal of the assessee.
Per contra, the Ld. DR relying on the orders of the lower authorities, submitted that the assessee has filed to reply at the end of the assessment and the contentions of the assessee has been considered by the AO as well as the Ld. CIT(A) and passed the respective orders, thus, submitted that the appeal of the assessee deserves to be dismissed.
We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. During the assessment proceedings, assessee filed the reply on 18.03.2024 and also on 19.03.2024 before the AO and the assessment order came to be passed on 21.03.2024 without considering the reply of the assessee.
Royalux Lighting LLP vs. Assessment Unit In view of the above, we restore the issue to the file of the AO for framing de- novo assessment in accordance with law after considering the reply filed by the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee shall be provided with opportunity of being heard.
In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open Court on 17th December, 2025.