SUMAN SHARMA,PATPARGANJ vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 58(3), NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) did not provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after granting the assessee a proper opportunity to present evidence.
What were the facts?
The assessee appealed against an NFAC order for A.Y 2016-17, challenging the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer under Section 148, an ex-parte assessment, the computation of short-term capital gain, an addition under Section 69, and liability for interest under Sections 234A and 234B, primarily due to denial of reasonable opportunity of hearing.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the lower authorities denied the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. 2. Whether the reassessment proceedings and additions made under Sections 148 and 69 were legally valid.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘A’ BENCH,
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the NFAC, Delhi-4 dated 31.01.2025 pertaining to A.Y 2016-17.
2. At the very outset the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted his grievances vide grounds of appeal which read as under:
“1. That the assumption of jurisdiction by the jurisdictional assessing officer instead of the faceless assessing officer in issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act would render the reassessment proceedings non-est and bad in law.
That the ex-parte nature of the assessment order as well as the impugned order, solely due to the negligence of the concerned professional, ought not to detriment the appellant, without a fair and adequate opportunity of hearing.
3. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessing officer has erred in computing the short term capital gain of the immovable property by treating the entire sale consideration as the short term capital gain, which is bad in law.
That the addition of Rs. 59,25,000/- to the income of the 4 appellant under section 69 of the Act on account of purchase of an immovable property is arbitrary and illegal.
That the total income determined at Rs. 87,44,400/- and the consequent tax demand of Rs. 70,60,830/- is arbitrary, unjust and at any rate excessive.
That the appellant denies liability to pay interest under sections 6 234A and 234B amounting to Rs. 21,68,662/- and Rs. 23,70,398/- respectively.
That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any ground during the course of the proceedings”
Per contra, the ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below.
4. A perusal of the above grounds of appeal reveal that the main argument of the ld. counsel for the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) has not afforded reasonable opportunity of being heard by not serving proper notice to assessee. Having heard the rival submissions, we are of the considered view that both the Assessing Officer and the first appellate authority ought to have given a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, we deem it fit to restore the appeal to the file of the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) is directed to decide the appeal afresh after affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and considering the evidences/material furnished by the assessee. The assessee is directed to cooperate with the proceedings and furnish documents/evidence as required by the Assessing Officer.
Page 3 of 5 allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in open court on 26.08.2025.
More judgments on Section 148
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Sita Enterprises vs. Office Of The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Sri Tatiparthy Venkata Swamy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 25 Oct 2026
- Piyush Shantilal Veera vs. State Of U.P.Allahabad · 23 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Pooja Shri Traders vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1Madras · 23 Oct 2026
