Loading judgment…
Facts
A search and seizure operation led to proceedings u/s. 153C of the Income Tax Act against the assessee, Harmit Bawa, resulting in an addition of Rs. 24,95,000/-. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal ex-parte.
Held
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not granted a proper opportunity of being heard by the CIT(A) despite a valid adjournment request. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without granting a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
Sections Cited
132, 153C
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “E”, DELHI
Before: SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL,
ORDER PER SUDHIR KUMAR, JM : These 05 appeals by the assessee are directed against the separate orders of the Ld. CIT (A)-29, New Delhi relating to assessment years 2016-17 to 2020-21. Since all these appeals are related to same assessee, hence, these appeals were heard together and disposed of by passing this common order for the sake of convenience, by dealing with (AY 2016- 17), as a lead case wherein, the assessee has raised as many as 17 grounds, but he only argued the ground no. 1, which reads as under:-
That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in passing the appellate order exparte, without granting the assessee a proper and effective opportunity of being heard, despite a valid adjournment request being submitted through the income tax portal. The order is liable to be quashed.
The brief facts of the case are that a search and seizure operation u/s. 132 of the Income Tax Act was conducted in the cases of Rupali Buildwell group on Sh. Satya Priya Tyagi and his wife Ms. Kavita Tyagi on 22.8.2019. During the course of search on Sh. Satya Priya Tyagi & Smt. Kavita Tyagi at residence i.e. C-1/2771-B, Sushant Lok, Phase-I, Gurugram, Haryana various documents related to Sh. Harmit Bawa was found and seized. Accordingly, proceedings u/s. 153C of the Act were initiated in the case of appellant and the assessment was completed after making an addition at Rs. 24,95,000/-. Against the AO’s action, assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide his impugned order dated dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
We have heard both the parties and perused the records. We find plausible force in the contention of the Ld. AR that proper opportunity was not granted by the ld. CIT(A) to canvass its case before him, despite a valid adjournment request being submitted through the income tax portal. Keeping in view of the aforesaid factual matrix and in the interest of justice, the matter is remanded back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to consider the issues afresh in all the 05 appeals, in accordance with law by considering all the relevant documents, evidences etc. to be filed by the assessee. However, assessee is directed to furnish the complete details/ evidences before the Ld. CIT(A) in accordance with law. Ld. DR fairly agreed to this proposition. We hold and direct accordingly. In the result, the appeal for AY 2016-17 is allowed for statistical purposes.
Our aforesaid decision for assessment year 2016-17 will apply mutatis 4. mutandis to other remaining 04 appeals relevant to assessment years 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21 also. 5. In the result, all the 05 appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes in the aforesaid manner. Order pronounced on 22.09.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH AGARWAL) (SUDHIR KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Date: 28-10-2025 SRBHATNAGGAR