SHRI KRISHNA HARE EDUCATIONAL TRUST,DELHI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD EXEMP 2(2), DELHI, DELHI

ITA 4808/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves the Shri Krishna Hare Educational Trust appealing against the order of the CIT(A)/Additional CIT(A) Panchkula for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The primary contention was that the CIT(A) erred in law and on facts by confirming the respondent's order, which was claimed to be without jurisdiction and erroneous. The trust argued that additions made to their income were without proper consideration of the material on record and violated principles of natural justice. The tribunal noted that the assessee did not receive the notice for the hearing, leading to an ex-parte decision, and thus decided to remand the case for a fresh hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 787367 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 05-08-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: OM PRAKASH
• Assessee Lawyers: AMIT KAUSHIK; HIMANSHU SHARMA
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice
• Section: 11; 12

Judgement Text

"P a g e | 1 ITA No. 4808/Del/2025 Shri Krishna Hare Educational Trust (AY: 2017-18) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 4808/Del/2025 (Assessment Year 2017-18) Shri Krishna Hare Educational Trust 802, Padma Tower 1, 5 Rajendra Place, New Delhi – 110008 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Exemption 2(2) E-2, Block, Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi – 110002 \u0001थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: AAITS2217B Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Sh. Amit Kaushik, Adv. & Sh. Himanshu Sharma, Adv. Respondent by : Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 17.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement 19.11.2025 O R D E R PER KRINWANT SAHAY, AM: Appeal in this case has been filed against the order dated 25.02.2025 passed by the CIT(A)/Additional CIT(A) Panchkula for A.Y. 2017-18. The grounds of appeal are as under: “1. That the CIT(A) grossly erred in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case in dismissing the appeal of the Appellant by confirming the order dated 27.12.2019 passed by the respondent without considering that the same was erroneous and bad in law and without jurisdiction. Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 2 ITA No. 4808/Del/2025 Shri Krishna Hare Educational Trust (AY: 2017-18) 2. That the CIT(A) grossly erred in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case in dismissing the appeal of the Appellant by confirming the order dated 27.12.2019 passed by the respondent without considering that the same was without jurisdiction and thus void ab initio. 3. That the CIT(A) grossly erred in law and on the facts and circumstances dated 27.12.2019 passed by the respondent without considering that the additions of Rs.24,63,054/- to the income of the Appellant was made without considering the material on record and in denial of the principals of natural justice. 4. That the CIT(A) grossly erred in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case in dismissing the appeal of the Appellant by confirming the order dated 27.12.2019 passed by the respondent without considering that the respondent erred in making additions of Rs. 4,26,989/- to the income of the Appellant under section 13 read with section 11 and 12 of the Act. 5. That the CIT(A) grossly erred in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case in dismissing the appeal of the Appellant by confirming the order dated 27.12.2019 passed by the respondent without considering that the respondent erred in making additions of Rs. 20,36,065/- to the income of the Appellant under section 13 read with section 11 and 12 of the Act. 6. The Appellant craves for leave to add, amend, vary, omit OR substitute any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal at any time before OR at the time of hearing of the appeal. 7. That all the grounds are without prejudice to each other.” 2. At the very outset, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted before the Bench that the notice issued by the Ld. CIT(A) were never served on the assessee and it was also not served on the email address given by the assessee on Form No. 36, therefore, the assessee could not get the notice and so no compliance was made. As a result thereof, the Ld. CIT(A) passed an order ex-parte without having an occasion to get the submission of the assessee. Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 3 ITA No. 4808/Del/2025 Shri Krishna Hare Educational Trust (AY: 2017-18) Accordingly, the Ld. Counsel requested that the case may be remanded back to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merit. 3. Per contra, the Ld. DR relied on the order of the authorities below. 4. We have considered the arguments made by the Ld. Counsel of the assessee as well as by the Ld. DR. We find that the assessee could not get notice on the email given on Form No. 35, therefore, there was no compliance made by the assessee. Keeping in view the element of natural justice the assessee should have been given time to file its submission in order to pass order on merit that has not been done in this case. Accordingly, we are inclined to remand this case back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to pass an order on merit after giving adequate opportunity to the assessee as required under law. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 19.11.2025 Sd/- (Anubhav Sharma) Sd/- (Krinwant Sahay) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated 19.11.2025 Rohit, Sr. PS Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 4 ITA No. 4808/Del/2025 Shri Krishna Hare Educational Trust (AY: 2017-18) Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI Printed from counselvise.com "