UDITANSHU BANKA,LAXMI NAGAR ,DELHI vs. DCIT-CC-03, JHANDELWALAN EXTENSION

PDF · subscribers
ITA 628/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 November 2025AY 2020-21Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member), SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(A) passed the order ex-parte without providing the Assessee an opportunity of being heard and without deciding all grounds on merits. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Ld. CIT(A).

What were the facts?

The Assessee filed an appeal against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) which dismissed their appeal against an assessment order adding Rs. 20,70,000/- under Section 45 of the Income Tax Act.

What were the issues?

Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred by passing an ex-parte order without granting an opportunity of hearing to the Assessee and not deciding all grounds on merits?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 45

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI

Before: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. & SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH

For Respondent: Ms. PoojaSwaroop, CIT (DR)
Hearing: 06/11/2025Pronounced: 28/11/2025

(A.Y 2020-21) Uditanshu Banka Vs. Deputy Commissioner of F-172/A-1, Mangal Bazar, Income Tax, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi Central Circle-03, E-2, A.R.A PAN: CIWPB4899J Central Circle, Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi Appellant Respondent Assessee by Sh. V.K. Tulsian, CA Revenue by Ms. PoojaSwaroop, CIT (DR) Date of Hearing 06/11/2025 Date of Pronouncement 28/11/2025 ORDER

PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM:

1.

The captioned Appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-25, New Delhi (‘Ld. CIT(A’ for short), New Delhi dated 25/11/2024 pertaining to Assessment Years 2020-21.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that, an assessment order came to be passed on 01/03/2023 by making two addition of Rs. 20,70,000/-u/s 45 of Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short). Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 01/03/2023, the Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 25/11/2024 , 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 vehementlysubmitted 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. 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.

More judgments on Section 45

All 1,374 judgments and leading authorities on Section 45 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →