ITO WARD - 29(4), NEW DELHI vs. RITESH SINGH, NEW DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal decided to remand the case back to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh on merits after considering the Supreme Court's decision on the service of notice and providing an opportunity of hearing to both parties.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer made an ex-parte assessment order after the assessee failed to comply with subsequent notices. The CIT(A) held the assessment order null and void, not adjudicating on merits.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) was correct in treating the assessment proceedings as null and void on technical grounds without adjudicating on merits, and the interpretation of 'service' of notice under Section 143(2).
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
O R D E R PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM
The appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-33, New Delhi (“CIT(A)”) pertaining to Assessment Year (“AY”) 2014-15.
The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:-
“1. Whether on the facts & in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct by deleting additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) merely on technical ground rather on merit? 2. Whether on the facts & in the circumstances of the case and in laws the Ld. CIT(A) is correct by treating the assessment proceeding null and void inspite of the fact that Notice u/s 143(2) was issued to the address of the assessee through Speed Post within limitation period? 3. Whether on the facts & in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in deleting the additions made by the AO and treated the Assessment null and void, on the ground that issue of Notice is not sufficient as per requirement of proviso u/s 143(2) of 1.T. Act, 1961 but is should be served within limitation period?
4. Whether on the facts & in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in deleting the Additions made by the AO by ignoring the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of V.R.A. Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India, Civil Appeal No.34846/2011, wherein it was upheld that the expression "Serve" means the date of issue of Notice? 5. Whether on the facts & in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) is correct by treating the Assessment proceeding null and void inspite of the fact that the Assessee had never challenged the jurisdiction or Assessment proceeding before the AO?” 3. The assessee individual filed his return for AY 2014-15 electronically on 03.12.2014 declaring income of Rs. 7,17,470/-. His case was selected under CASS for complete scrutiny. Statutory notice under section 143(2) issued on 30.09.2015 fixing the hearing for 08.10.2015 sent through speed post and e-mail also was responded to by the assessee. His representative attended on 15.10.2015 and filed Power of Attorney. Thereafter, notices sent from time to time remained uncomplied with. The Ld. Assessing Officer (“AO”) therefore passed ex-parte order dated 23.12.2016 under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) determining the total income of the assessee at Rs. 1,80,40,240/-.
On appeal filed by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A), challenging the assessment on ground, interalia that the assessment is violative of principles of natural justice; that assessment order is bad in law and that it was framed without providing any opportunity of hearing and the notice(s) issued under section 143(2)/142(1) of the Act were never served on the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) decided the above grounds in favour of the assessee and held the assessment order as null and void. He did not adjudicate the appeal on merits.
Dissatisfied, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal.
The grievance of the Revenue is that the Ld. CIT(A) has ignored the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of V.R.A Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India, Civil Appeal No. 34846/2011 wherein it has been upheld that the expression “serve” means the date of time of notice, as compliance of the requirement of proviso to section 143(2) of the Act.
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in our opinion, it would be appropriate and in the interest of justice and fair play to send the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to him to consider the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in V.R.A Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and decide the appeal afresh on merits after allowing reasonable opportunity of hearing to both the parties. We order accordingly.
More judgments on Section 142(1)
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Subhash Chand Saini, Jaipur vs ITO Ward, Behror, BherorITA 36/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Venish Vinodray Lalani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, MorbiITA 197/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Gaurav Jiteshbhai Joshi, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1000/RJT/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sutlej Textiles And Industries Limited vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S. Ut Corp vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- Sunrise Engineering vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Kalra Traders vs. Union Of INDIAUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Ms Isoft vs. The Commissioner State TaxUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
