GOPAL SINGH,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD-1(3), GURGAON

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2194/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 September 2025AY 2018-19Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the first appellate authority should have provided a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed in limine by the NFAC due to delay, despite the delay being condoned earlier in the order. The assessee argued that proper notices were not served, leading to a violation of natural justice.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was denied a reasonable opportunity of being heard due to improper service of notices. Whether the assessment order passed under Section 144 was bad in law due to violation of natural justice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 139(1),Section 144,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘A’ BENCH,

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA

For Appellant: Shri V. Rajakumar, Adv
For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Mahajan, Sr. DR
Hearing: 27.08.2025Pronounced: 27.08.2025

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the NFAC, Delhi dated 24.01.2025 pertaining to A.Y 2018-19.

2. At the very outset the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted his grievances vide grounds of appeal which read as under:

Page 1 of 5 /DEL/2025 Suman Sharma Vs ITO [A.Y 2021-22]

A. dismissing the appeal in limine on account of delay even though in the earlier part of the appellate order the delay has been stated to have condoned by the NFAC;

B. in not admitting the appeal for adjudication and orders

C. confirming the following actions of the Assessment Unit -

"1. For that the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO is bad in law as well as on facts.

2.

For that the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO without providing the assessee copies of reasons recorded, material relied upon, inquiries made and approval obtained before initiating the reassessment proceedings. Therefore, the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO is bad in law.

3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. AO has erred in law and on facts in making the addition of entire Plot sales consideration of Rs.5580000/- as Short Term Capital Gain. This plot was purchased on02.07.2014 for Rs.4384000/- After indexation of plot purchase cost and other expenses, there is n income tax liability as per Income Tax Act.

4.

Since assessee did not have any taxable income in assessment year under appeal, therefore, assessee was not liable to file the return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act.

Page 2 of 5 /DEL/2025 Suman Sharma Vs ITO [A.Y 2021-22]

5.

That the addition of Rs.5580000/- made under Capital Gain of the Act to the income of the Appellant is not tenable under the facts of the case since the assessee was ill and Non techno savvy. Due to medical reasons, illiteracy and Non techno savvy assessee was not able to participate in assessment proceedings, hence order passed u/s144 is gross violation of principle of natural justice.

6.

That Violation of principles of natural justice as proper opportunity is denied simple because notices are sent to (1) email ids that are no longer in use (ii) email ids of chartered accountants who have created the profile of the assessee before 10 years/file the income tax return and who are no longer in the service of the assessee. Without proper service of notice under section 148, all proceedings are null and void."

3.

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. It is the say of the ld. counsel for the assessee that the emails were sent to email ids which were no longer in use and the email ids of CA who had created the profile of the assessee 10 years before and who are no longer in the service of the assessee.

Page 3 of 5 /DEL/2025 Suman Sharma Vs ITO [A.Y 2021-22]

5. Having heard the rival submissions, we are of the considered view that 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. allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in open court on 27.08.2025.

More judgments on Section 139(1)

All 8,117 judgments and leading authorities on Section 139(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →