SUNIL KUMAR AGARWAL,MEERUT vs. PR, CIT, GHAZIABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the PCIT passed the order without providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, violating principles of natural justice. The matter was restored to the PCIT for fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee appealed an order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (PCIT) under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act. The assessee contended that the PCIT did not provide an adequate opportunity of being heard before passing the order.
What were the issues?
Whether the PCIT provided adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee before passing the order under Section 263, and if not, whether the order is liable to be set aside on grounds of violation of natural justice.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘H’, NEW DLEHI
Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY & SHRI M. BALAGANESH
This is an appeal by the Assessee assailing the order dated 10.03.2021 passed by learned Principal Commissioner of Income- tax(PCIT), Ghaziabad u/s. 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2015-16.
We have heard Shri Gautam Jain, learned counsel appearing for the Assessee and Shri Raghunath, learned Sr. Departmental Representative. The basic grievance of the Assessee, as canvassed by ld. Counsel for the Assessee is, before concluding the proceedings u/s. 263 of the Act, the Revisionary Authority had not extended adequate opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. In this context, ld. Counsel appearing for the Assessee, drawing our attention to the order passed u/s. 263 of the Act, submitted that ld. PCIT issued a single show cause notice u/s. 263 of the Act on 01.02.2021 and thereafter without providing any personal hearing to the Assessee has passed the order u/s. 263 of the Act. He submitted that even while passing the order u/s. 263 of the Act, ld. PCIT has completely ignored two replies to show cause notice issued u/s. 263 of the Act, which were uploaded in ITBA Portal. Thus, he submitted, the issue may be restored back to ld. PCIT for passing a fresh order after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee.
Learned Departmental Representative, though, submitted that as
per the observations of ld. PCIT, the Assessee did not comply with the show cause notice issued u/s. 263 of the Act, however, he submitted that matter can be restored back to ld. PCIT for fresh adjudication.
Having considered rival submissions and perused the materials on record, prima facie, we are of the view that ld. PCIT has passed the impugned order without providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. Though, in the body of the order, ld. PCIT has stated that in response to show cause notice dated 01.02.2021 issued u/s. 263 of the Act, the Assessee did not furnish any reply on or before the date of compliance fixed on 10.02.2021, however, the materials placed on record clearly reveal that the Assessee did file its replies to the show cause notice issued u/s. 263 of the Act. It appears, neither learned PCIT has taken note of the replies filed by the Assessee nor he has given any further opportunity of being heard to the Assessee, except, the single date of compliance fixed on 10.02.2021. This, in our view, is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order of ld. PCIT and restore the matter back to his file for de novo adjudication after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Learned PCIT must pass a reasoned order after considering all the submissions to be made by Assessee. Grounds are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 02/05/2023.
More judgments on Section 263
- Gillette India Limited, Mumbai vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, JaipurITA 1316/JPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Vimal Harilal Baldania, Gandhidham vs The ITO Ward 2, GandhidhamITA 770/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1493/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1492/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Rentex Polymers Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxDelhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Shila Traders vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Ashish Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner Gsto Ward No. 86Delhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bhanwal Trading And Company vs. The Union Of INDIARajasthan · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Saraswati Enterprises vs. State Of RajasthanRajasthan · 28 Oct 2026