JWS MULTI STATE CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 60(5), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3260/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 December 2025AY 2016-17Bench: SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER, SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA (Accountant Member)4 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) decided the issue without appreciating facts and evidence, prioritizing technicalities over substantive justice. The matter was restored back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after allowing adequate opportunity to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was against an order from the NFAC. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) decided the issues without adequate opportunity of being heard and without admitting additional evidence.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in deciding the issues without providing adequate opportunity of hearing and admitting additional evidence. Whether the matter should be restored back to the Assessing Officer.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘E’ BENCH,

Before: SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Joshi, CA
For Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR
Hearing: 19.11.2025Pronounced: 19.11.2025

PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:-

1.

This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the NFAC, Delhi dated 12.03.2025 pertaining to A.Y. 2016-17. the ld. CIT(A) has decided the issues without providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee to present its case. It is the say of the ld. counsel for the assessee that several additional evidences have been submitted before the ld. CIT(A) which were not admitted. He, therefore, prayed that since neither the Assessing Officer nor the ld. CIT(A) examined the evidences produced before the ld. CIT(A), the matter may be remitted back to the Assessing Officer for adjudication of the additional/fresh evidence with regard to the subject matter in the assessee instant appeal.

3.

Per contra, the ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below.

4.

We have heard the rival submissions and have perused the relevant material on record. We find that the ld. CIT(A) has decided the issue without appreciation of facts and evidence brought on his record. The ld. CIT(A) has accorded primacy to the technicality of Rule 46A of the I.T.

Rules and has ignored the principles of substantive justice. In view of the above facts and circumstances and in the interest of justice and fair play, we are of the considered view that the matter be restored back to the file

Page 2 of 4 issues afresh after allowing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

6.

The assessee is also directed to provide necessary information /documents as required by the authorities and co-operate in adjudication of the issues at hand. allowed for statistical purposes.

The order is pronounced in the open court on 19.11.2025.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →