SMT. SUPROBHA BEHERA SMT. SUPROBHA BEHERA LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SH. BHASKAR BEHERA,NEW DELHI V. ACIT, DELHI

ITA 3317/DEL/2025

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Smt Suprobha Behera against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, which pertained to the assessment year 2017-18. The primary contention was the alleged violation of the principles of natural justice by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who disposed of the appeal without granting a proper and effective opportunity for the appellant to be heard. The appellant argued that the CIT(A) upheld an addition of INR 23,94,750 made by the Assessing Officer, which was contested based on various judicial pronouncements. The case also highlighted issues related to the non-receipt of the assessment order by the assessee, which led to an initial lack of awareness and delayed response.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 791148 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-12-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 20-05-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMISHA S. GUPTA
• Assessee Lawyers: VARUN GUPTA
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Search and seizure; Accommodation entries
• Section: 132

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘E’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 3317/DEL/2025 [A.Y. 2015-16] Smt Suprobha Behera Vs. The C.I.T[A]- 25 L/H of Late Shri Bhaskar Behera New Delhi F-127, M3, Murti Apartments, Dilshad Garden, Delhi PAN – AFPPB 2760 J (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Varun Gupta, CA Department By : Ms. Amisha S. Gupta, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 13.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 10.12.2025 ORDER PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the NFAC, Delhi dated 25.01.2024 pertaining to A.Y. 2017-18. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee read as under: Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 3317/DEL/2025 [A.Y. 2015-16] Smt Suprobha Behera Vs. ACIT Page 2 of 5 “That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in disposing of the appeal without granting the appellant a proper and effective opportunity of being heard, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. 2 That the order passed by the CIT(A) is bad in law and liable to be set aside as the appellant was neither given afforded sufficient time/opportunity to represent its case adequately. The appellate order has been passed in undue haste and in the absence of representation from the appellant, rendering it arbitrary and unsustainable m law 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellant respectfully submits that the appeal has been Bled within the period prescribed under the Income Tax Act. 1961, and hence there is no delay in filing the same 4 That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in upholding the addition of 23,94,750 made by the Assessing Officer, which ought to have been deleted considering appreciate the legal position emerging from and rule of law laid down in various judicial pronouncements 5 The Appellant craves leave to add or amend any ground of appeal.” 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a search and seizure proceedings u/s 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act, for short] was carried out on the Alankit Group, Sh. Ashok K Agarwal, his son Ankit Agarwal and some of the close associates and key employees of Shri Alok K Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 3317/DEL/2025 [A.Y. 2015-16] Smt Suprobha Behera Vs. ACIT Page 3 of 5 Agarwal on 18.10.2019. During the course of search, certain incriminating documents were found and seized to suggest that the searched person was engaged in providing accommodation entries to various parties including Shri Bhaskar Behera. Thereafter, notice u/s 153C of the Act was issued for the A.Ys 2010-11 to 2020-21. 4. The Assessing Officer, accordingly, passed assessment order on 31/03/2024. However, the said order was never served on the assessee through any valid mode prescribed under the Act. Due to non-receipt of the order, the assessee was unaware of the contents of the order and made repeated follow-ups with the department. It was only on 11.6.2024 that the assessee received the assessment order for the first time. Immediately thereafter, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) within one day of actual service of order. 5. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground of delay despite being provided opportunity. 6. Now the assessee is aggrieved and has come in appeal before us. 7. Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee vehemently stated that the ld. CIT(A) passed the ex-parte order without providing reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It is the say of the ld. counsel for the assessee that because of the extremely short gap Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 3317/DEL/2025 [A.Y. 2015-16] Smt Suprobha Behera Vs. ACIT Page 4 of 5 between the notice of hearing and coupled with the fact that only one notice was issued, the principles of natural justice were violated as the ld. CIT(A) passed ex-parte order without granting proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 8. Per contra, the ld. DR relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A). 9. We have heard the rival submissions and have perused the relevant material on record. We are of the considered view that the CIT(A) ought to have given sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Considering the facts of the case, we are of the considered view that in the interest of justice and fair play, the appeal be restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication. 10. The ld. CIT(A) is directed to decide the issues afresh after affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to provide necessary information/documents as required by the authorities. 11. In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 3317/DEL/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 3317/DEL/2025 [A.Y. 2015-16] Smt Suprobha Behera Vs. ACIT Page 5 of 5 The order is pronounced in the open court on 01.12.2025. Sd/- Sd/- [CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD] [NAVEEN CHANDRA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 10th December, 2025. VL/ Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) Asst. Registrar, 5. DR ITAT, New Delhi Sl No. PARTICULARS DATES 1. Date of dictation of Tribunal Order 2. Date on which the typed draft order is placed before the Dictating Member 3. Date on which the typed draft order is placed before the other Member [in case of DB] 4. Date on which the approved draft order comes to the Sr. P.S./P.S. 5. Date on which the fair Order is placed before the Dictating Member for sign 6. Date on which the fair order is placed before the other Member for sign [in case of DB] 7. Date on which the Order comes back to the Sr. P.S./P.S for uploading on ITAT website 8. Date of uploading, inf not, reason for not uploading 9. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk 10. Date on which the file goes for Xerox 11. Date on which the file goes for endorsement 12. The date on which the file goes to the Superintendent for checking 13. Date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order 14. Date on which the file goes to the dispatch section for dispatch the Tribunal order 15. Date of Dispatch of the Order 16. Date on which the file goes to the Record Room after dispatch the order Printed from counselvise.com "