SHRI KRISHNA HARE EDUCATIONAL TRUST,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD EXEMP 2(2), DELHI, DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the assessee did not receive notice, violating principles of natural justice. Consequently, the case was remanded back to the CIT(A) to pass an order on merit after providing an adequate opportunity to the assessee.
What were the facts?
The appeal was filed against the order of the CIT(A) which dismissed the appellant's appeal. The appellant's counsel argued that notices were not served on the assessee, leading to an ex-parte order by the CIT(A).
What were the issues?
Whether the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) was valid when the assessee was not served with proper notice, violating principles of natural justice. Whether the case should be remanded for fresh adjudication on merits.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, DELHI
Before: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA & SHRI KRINWANT SAHAYShri Krishna Hare
Appeal in this case has been filed against the order dated 25.02.2025 passed by the CIT(A)/Additional CIT(A) Panchkula for A.Y. 2017-18. The grounds of appeal are as under:
“1. That the CIT(A) grossly erred in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case in dismissing the appeal of the Appellant by confirming the order dated 27.12.2019 passed by the respondent without considering that the same was erroneous and bad in law and without jurisdiction.
That the CIT(A) grossly erred in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case in dismissing the appeal of the Appellant by confirming the order dated 27.12.2019 passed by the respondent without considering that the same was without jurisdiction and thus void ab initio.
3. That the CIT(A) grossly erred in law and on the facts and circumstances dated 27.12.2019 passed by the respondent without considering that the additions of Rs.24,63,054/- to the income of the Appellant was made without considering the material on record and in denial of the principals of natural justice.
4. That the CIT(A) grossly erred in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case in dismissing the appeal of the Appellant by confirming the order dated 27.12.2019 passed by the respondent without considering that the respondent erred in making additions of Rs. 4,26,989/- to the income of the Appellant under section 13 read with section 11 and 12 of the Act.
5. That the CIT(A) grossly erred in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case in dismissing the appeal of the Appellant by confirming the order dated 27.12.2019 passed by the respondent without considering that the respondent erred in making additions of Rs. 20,36,065/- to the income of the Appellant under section 13 read with section 11 and 12 of the Act. 6. The Appellant craves for leave to add, amend, vary, omit OR substitute any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal
at any time before OR at the time of hearing of the appeal.
7. That all the grounds are without prejudice to each other.”
2. At the very outset, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted before the Bench that the notice issued by the Ld. CIT(A) were never served on the assessee and it was also not served on the email address given by the assessee on Form No. 36, therefore, the assessee could not get the notice and so no compliance was made. As a result thereof, the Ld. CIT(A) passed an order ex-parte without having an occasion to get the submission of the assessee.
Accordingly, the Ld. Counsel requested that the case may be remanded back to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merit.
Per contra, the Ld. DR relied on the order of the authorities below.
We have considered the arguments made by the Ld. Counsel of the assessee as well as by the Ld. DR. We find that the assessee could not get notice on the email given on Form No. 35, therefore, there was no compliance made by the assessee. Keeping in view the element of natural justice the assessee should have been given time to file its submission in order to pass order on merit that has not been done in this case. Accordingly, we are inclined to remand this case back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to pass an order on merit after giving adequate opportunity to the assessee as required under law.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 19.11.2025
More judgments on Section 13
- Ramkrishna Bajaj Charitable Trust, Mumbai vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle…ITA 66/MUM/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
- Karnataka Samarpana Education Society… vs Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions)…ITA 1439/BANG/2026[2026-27]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2026-27
- Bucher Hydraulics Private Limited, Gurgaon vs ACIT Tp 1(1)(1), New DelhiITA 1872/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: Disposed23 Sept 2026AY 2017-18
- St John the Evangelist Church, Andheri… vs CIT(Exemption), Mumbai, CumballaITA 5627/MUM/2026[2026-27]Status: Disposed22 Sept 2026AY 2026-27
- Richmond Educational Society, Noida vs PCIT (Central), KanpurITA 5485/DEL/2026[2026-27]Status: Heard18 Sept 2026AY 2026-27
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Noore Manpower Services vs. Commissioner Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 2 Nov 2026
- Maa Bhawani Minrals vs. Commissioner Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 2 Nov 2026
- M/S. Nourangi Paints vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 2 Nov 2026
- Basant Kumar Gupta vs. Union Of INDIAPatna · 2 Nov 2026
- M/S Swapnashiyana Homes Developers Private Limited vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 2 Nov 2026
