Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench(2025) 10 ITAT CK 2744

Anuj Kamboj vs Income Tax Officer

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'C', New Delhi · Decided on 24 October 2025

HON’BLE JUDGES
S. Rifaur Rahman, Accountant Member · Yogesh Kumar U.S., Judicial Member
CASE NUMBER
ITA Nos. 3130, 3131, 3132 & 3133/Del/2025

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 388 words

PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM:

The above captioned appeals are filed by the Assessee against the orders of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC’ for short), New Delhi dated 17/03/2025 for the Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 respectively.

2.

The assessment orders came to be passed on 27/12/2021, 24/12/2021, 27/12/2021 and 24/12/2021 in respect of Assessment Years 2013-14 to 2016-17 respectively u/s 147 r.w. Section144 and Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) by making certain additions. The Assessee preferred four Appeals before the Ld. CIT(A), which have been dismissed on 17/03/2025 vide orders impugned. As against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 17/03/2025, the Assessee preferred the captioned Appeals.

3.

The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that both the order of the A.O. as well as Ld. CIT(A) are ex-parte and the Ld. CIT(A) has not decided on the grounds of the Appeal of the Assessee and the order impugned came to be passed in violation of principals of natural justice. Thus, sought for allowing the Appeal.

4.

Per contra, the Ld. Department's Representative submitted that the Assessee is a chronic defaulter who has not made submission in full before the A.O. and failed to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) therefore, both the A.O. as well as the Ld. CIT(A) have passed the respective orders in accordance with law which requires no interference, thus by relying on the orders of the Lower Authorities sought for dismissal of the Appeal.

5.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. Both the order of the A.O. as well as order of the Ld. CIT(A) are ex-parte, the Assessee has also remained absent before the Ld. CIT(A). Even the Ld. CIT(A) has not decided all the grounds of Appeals of the Assessee on its merits. In view of the above, in the interest of justice, we deem it fit to restore the issue to the file of the A.O. for de-novo assessment. Needless to say, the A.O. shall provide opportunity of being heard to the Assessee before passing the assessment orders in accordance with law. The Assessee is also directed to participate in assessment proceedings without fail.

6.

In the result, the Appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.