VISHAKHA SHAILANI,DWARKA vs. ITO, CIVIC CENTRE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1334/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 April 2026AY 2012-132 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, allowing three effective opportunities for hearing to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to appear before the lower appellate authority due to communication gaps. The Assessing Officer made additions to the income.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing before the CIT(A) and whether the matter should be remanded for fresh adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Hearing: 06.04.2026Pronounced: 06.04.2026

Assessment Year: 2012-13 Vs. Income Tax Officer Vishakha Shalini A-136, Sector-19, Ward-28(5) Dwarka New Delhi New Delhi-75 PAN: AALPS3653A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Rajat Garg, CA(VC) Department by Sh. Ravi Kant Chaudhary, Sr. DR Date of hearing 06.04.2026 Date of pronouncement 06.04.2026 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/Addl. JCIT (A)- 2 [in short, the “CIT(A)”], Mumbai’s DIN & order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1083853112(1), dated 18.12.2025 involving proceedings under section 147/ 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

Learned counsel submits that on account of communication gaps at various levels, the assessee could not appear to plead and prove all the relevant facts in the lower appellate proceedings and Assessing Officer. The Revenue vehemently support the learned lower authorities action making addition(s) herein on merits.

4.

Be that as it may, the fact remains that possibility of some communication gaps at various levels in such an instance could not be altogether ruled out. It is therefore deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice to restore the assessee’s instant appeal back to the CIT(A) for his afresh appropriate adjudication, within three effective opportunities of hearing at the appellant’s risk and responsibility, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →