VIRENDER GUPTA,DELHI vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-16, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4227/DEL/2025Status: HeardITAT Delhi13 November 2025AY 2015-16Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned a delay of 32 days in filing the appeals. Observing that ex-parte proceedings might lead to communication gaps, the Tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed seven appeals against the orders of the CIT(A) which were passed ex-parte. The CIT(A) had affirmed the Assessing Officer's disallowances and additions. The Revenue argued that the assessee did not provide explanations or evidence.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing ex-parte orders without affording sufficient opportunity to the assessee, and whether the appeals should be remanded for fresh adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 153A,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

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

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN

Hearing: 13.11.2025Pronounced: 13.11.2025

Date of hearing 13.11.2025 Date of pronouncement 13.11.2025 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM These assessee’s seven appeals to 4230/Del/2025 for assessment years 2012-13 to 2018-19, arise against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-26 [in short, the “CIT(A)”], New Delhi’s orders, all dated 12.03.2025, passed in case nos. 26/10215/2019-20, 26/10225/2019-20, 10231/2019-20, 10237/2019-20, 10243/2019-20, 10249/2019-20 and 10256/2019-20, involving proceedings under section 153A r.w.s.

143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), respectively. Heard both the parties. Case files perused.

2.

Delay of 32 days in filing of the assessee’s instant appeals is condoned in larger interest of justice and in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).

3.

It emerges at the outset during the course of hearing that the learned CIT(A) in its detailed discussion has proceeded ex-parte against the assessee thereby affirming the Assessing Officer’s action making the corresponding disallowances/additions herein.

4.

The Revenue during the course of hearing vehemently argues in support of CIT(A)’s finding that the assessee had not filed any explanation or evidence supporting it’s case.

5.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the foregoing rival stands and are of the considered view that since the CIT(A) has proceeded ex-parte against the assessee, possibility of some communication gaps between the taxpayer, auditor and the arguing counsel in such an instance could not be altogether ruled out.

6.

Faced with this situation, in the larger interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to restore the assessee’s instant seven appeals back to the CIT(A) for his afresh appropriate adjudication, within three effective opportunities subject to a rider that the taxpayer shall plead and prove the cases at his own risk and responsibility, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.

More judgments on Section 153A

All 18,957 judgments and leading authorities on Section 153A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →