Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench(2026) 09 ITAT CK 6367

Kiwi Alloys Limited vs ITO, Ward - 14 (3)

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi · Decided on 9 September 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
Vimal Kumar, Judicial Member · S. Rifaur Rahman, Accountant Member
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
ITA No.4044/DEL/2026

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

6 paragraphs · 414 words

PER S.RIFAUR RAHMAN,AM:

1.

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [for short ‘ld. CIT (A)] dated 24.07.2025 for the Assessment Year 2022-23.

2.

At the time of hearing, ld. AR for the assessee submitted that the ld. CIT (A) dismissed the appeal on the ground that assessee has been provided sufficient opportunities but assessee failed to submit any submission or evidence during appellant proceedings in support of grounds of appeal as well as statement of facts and remained completely non-compliant and non-responsive. He further submitted that the ld. CIT (A) had not adjudicated the issues on its merits. He submitted that ld. CIT (A) ought to have dealt with the grounds of appeal substantively. He submitted that there are reasons for assessee for not appearing before the first appellate authority was, the hearing notices were sent to wrong email id even though the right email id was mentioned in the Form 35, the same was sent to wrong email id. Further, he submitted that the AO passed the assessment order under section 143(3) read with section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). Accordingly, he prayed that this issue may be remitted back to ld. CIT(A) with the prayer to give an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

3.

On the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue objected to the submissions of the ld. counsel for the assessee and submitted that assessee has not utilized several opportunities granted by ld. CIT (A).

4.

Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We observed that the addition was sustained by the ld. CIT (A) relying on the order of the Assessing Officer. In our considered view, the hearing notices were sent to wrong email id and, therefore, assessee should be given one more opportunity of being heard on merit. Therefore, we restore the matter back to the file of ld. CIT (A) and direct ld. CIT (A) to give an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issue on merit as per law. We also direct assessee through his counsel to make proper submissions and appear before the ld. CIT (A) on the date of hearing and cooperate with the tax authorities. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

5.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.