AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER VIMAL KUMAR, JM:
The appeal filed by the assessee against order dated 28.10.2025 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/ NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “the CIT(A)”] under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) arising out of assessment order dated 03.05.2023 of Ld. Assessing Officer/ assessment unit u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act.
Ld. Authorized Representative for appellant/assessee submitted that Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that notices u/s 148A(b) of the Act dated 05.01.2023, 16.01.2023, 27.01.2023 and 11.03.2023 were issued with unreasonably shortn timelines (5-10days), denying a meaningful opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that Ld. AO failed to supply all information relied upon u/s 148A(b) of the Act violating principles laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ashish Agarwal case.
Ld. Departmental Representative relied on impugned orders.
From examination of record in light of aforesaid rival contention, it is crystal clear that Ld. CIT(A) vide ex parte order dated 28.10.2025 dismissed appeal as notices dated 27.08.2025, 12.09.2025 and 14.10.2025 could not be replied by the assessee. Ld. AO had also issued notices u/s 148A(d) of the Act dated 05.01.2023, 16.01.2023, 27.01.2023 and 11.03.2023 with unreasonably short timelines (5-10 days).
In view of above material facts, impugned orders dated 28.10.2025 of CIT(A) and dated 03.05.2023 of Ld. AO are set aside and the matter is restored to the file of Ld. AO for afresh decision in accordance with law after affording fair opportunity of hearing to the appellant/assessee.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.