PRRSAAR SAMPADA PVT. LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 20(1) , DELHI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the issue back for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was decided ex-parte without providing sufficient opportunity. The CIT(A) upheld additions without discussing merits. The assessee requested the matter be sent back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in deciding the appeal ex-parte without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee. Whether the matter should be remanded for fresh adjudication.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH & SHRI MANISH AGARWALShri Rajat Mittal, Adv.
Date of hearing 31.10.2025 Date of pronouncement 31.10.2025 O R D E R PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM:
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (‘the CIT(A) in short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 29.08.2025 in Appeal No. NFAC/2021-22/10352749 arising out of the Assessment order passed u/s 143 (3) r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” in short) for Assessment Year 2022-23.
Before us, Ld.AR submits that the appeal was decided by Ld.CIT(A) ex-parte without providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the assessee. He therefore, requested that the matter may be sent to the file of Ld.CIT(A) to decide the same on merits. Ld.AR further assured that necessary compliances would be made before Ld.CIT(A).
On the other hand, the Ld. Sr. DR has not objected to the request of the assessee.
Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. In the instant case, Ld.CIT(A) has provided five [05] opportunities to the assessee however, in none of the occasions, assessee filed any reply therefore, Ld.CIT(A) proceeded to decide the appeal ex-parte wherein the additions were upheld without making any discussions on the merits of the issues.
In view of these facts and in the interest of justice, we set aside the order of Ld.CIT(A) and remand the issue to the file of Ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to participate in the proceedings and file all the relevant details in support of grounds taken.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
More judgments on Section 144B
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Mohammed Javed Bhati, Sikar vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, SikarITA 994/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Haresh Sharma, Ahmedabad vs ITO, Ward 5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2125/AHD/2026[2019-2020]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-2020
- Haresh Sharma, Ahmedabad vs ITO, Ward 5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2124/AHD/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Shri Yaras Suresh Babu Prabhu Kumar vs. The Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026
- Santa Singh vs. SuperintendentUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Azaad Builders vs. Assistant Commissioner SGSTUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Ganesh Trimbak Saraf And Another vs. The State Of Maharashtra And AnotherBombay · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Monolith Resorts Private Limited vs. The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
