PIYUSH KAPOOR,FIROZABAD V. ITO-2(2)(3), DABRAI, FIROZABAD

ITA 93/AGR/2026

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Piyush Kapoor, the proprietor of Piyush Telecom Services, against an order from the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which dismissed his first appeal ex-parte. The original dispute arose from the Income Tax Officer's assessment, which estimated the assessee's income significantly higher than declared. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to the assessee's non-appearance, despite multiple opportunities given. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adequately discussed the merits of the case and remitted the matter back for a fresh decision, emphasizing the need to adhere to the principles of natural justice.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 847791 (ITAT-AGRA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-03-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Agra
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 31-01-2026
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHAILENDRA SRIVASTAVA
• Assessee Lawyers: S. K. CHATURVEDI
• Keywords: Set aside; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 142(1)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA (SMC) BENCH, AGRA BEFORE: SHRI M BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 93/Agr/2026 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Piyush Kapoor Piyush Telecom Services 743, Darzi Gali, Punjabi Colony, Shikohabad, Firozabad-283135, U.P Vs. ITO Ward 2(2)(3), Firozabad PAN : BFZPK6319D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri S.K. Chaturvedi, CA. Department by Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. DR Date of hearing 19.03.2026 Date of pronouncement 27.03.2026 ORDER PER: SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated 28.11.2025 passed in appeal No CIT(Appeal) 2, Agra/10022/2020-21 by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A) u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for the A.Y. 2015-16, wherein ld CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s first appeal ex-parte. 2. The brief facts under appeal state that the assessee e-filed his return of income for A.Y. 2015-16 on 22.08.2015, declaring total income of Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.93/Agr/2026 2 | P a g e Rs. 4,09,490/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS and notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served upon the assessee. After considering assessee’s submissions ld A.O. estimated assessee’s income at Rs. 17,46,783/-. 3. Aggrieved by the assessment order, assessee preferred an appeal before learned CIT(A), who dismissed assessee’s first appeal in default of assessee. 4. Assessee has filed this second appeal on the ground that learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the said additions by applying 8% of net profit of turnover at Rs. 17,46,783/-, by rejecting books of accounts without recording any reason to invoke section 145(3) of the Act. 5. We have perused the records and heard learned representative for the appellant assessee and ld Sr DR for the respondent revenue. 6. Learned representative for the assessee has, at the very outset informed that impugned order has been passed by learned CIT(A) ex-parte in violation of the principles of natural justice. Further submitting that the books of accounts could not be produced before the revenue authorities due to assessee’s dispute with his counsel. Prayed to set aside the impugned order. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.93/Agr/2026 3 | P a g e 7. Learned DR has submitted that assessee was provided sufficient opportunity of hearing by learned CIT(A) on five occasions but for no avail. Learned DR has supported impugned order. 8. We notice that the assessee did not respond to the various notices issued by the first appellate authority on five different occasions. However, it is further noticed that learned CIT(A) passed ex-parte impugned order without any substantial discussion on the merits of the case, whereas learned CIT(A) was expected to state the points for determination, decision thereon and the reasons for the decision as provided u/s. 250(6) of the Act. In the circumstances and in the interest of justice and fair play, we deem it just and appropriate to afford last opportunity to the assessee and remit the matter back to the file of learned CIT(A) for adjudication on merits afresh. We further direct the assessee to be diligent and cooperative in attending the hearings and making submissions for ascertaining the veracity of books of accounts and trading results before the learned CIT(A). Assessee should refrain from seeking any adjournment but for compelling and unavoidable circumstances. Needless to say that learned CIT(A) shall ensure the observance of the principles of natural justice. It is made clear that we have not made any observation in respect of the merits of the case. The appeal is liable to be allowed for statistical purposes. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.93/Agr/2026 4 | P a g e 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose. The impugned order dated 28.11.2025 is set aside. Order pronounced on - 27.03.2026 Sd/- Sd/- (M BALAGANESH) (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 27.03.2026 *Aamir Siddiqui, PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Agra Printed from counselvise.com "