VIRENDRA KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 58(1), DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that both lower authorities ought to have given reasonable opportunity of being heard. Additional evidence was admitted, and the appeal was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal before the NFAC was decided ex-parte. The assessee claims they did not receive notices due to their consultant's failure to inform them. The AO had made an addition u/s 69A of the IT Act, treating agricultural income as sales consideration of land.
What were the issues?
Whether the lower authorities erred in deciding the appeal ex-parte without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, and if additional evidence should be admitted.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘G’ BENCH,
Before: MS. MADHUMITA ROY, & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA
This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of NFAC, New Delhi dated 24.01.2025 for A.Y 2021-22.
Page 1 of 5 records carefully perused. Relevant documentary evidence brought on record duly considered in light of Rule 18(6) of the ITAT Rules.
The sum and substance of the grievance of the assessee is that the lower authorities have grossly erred in deciding the appeal ex-parte.
At the outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee stated that the assessee has filed an application under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules to admit additional evidences. It is submitted that the Ld. AO had vide order dated 19.12.2022 made addition u/s 69A of the IT Act, amounting to Rs. 2,32,17,000/- on account of agricultural income which was erroneously shown in the ITR as agricultural income and also under the schedule of exempt income as agricultural receipt whereas it was basically the sales consideration of the agricultural rural land (being 1/3d of the total sales consideration of Rs. 6,96,51,000/-). The evidences of the same could not be produced before the lower authorities as the assessee was having no knowledge of any notice issued by the FAO during the assessment proceeding as well as notices issued by the NFAC during the appellate proceeding as the e-mail id provided in the IT return and in Page 2 of 5 consultant who never informed about any notice issued by the assessing officer faceless as well as CIT(A) faceless.
Relying on the ratio laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tek Ram vs. CIT (2013) 357 ITR 133I, the assessee pleaded for admission of additional evidence as these are supportive in nature. Considering the affidavit of the assessee and the decision of the hon’ble Supreme Court above, the additional evidence is admitted.
Facts on record show that assessment was framed u/s 144 r.w 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act, for short]. At the very outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee is a farmer and the order passed by the Assessing Officer as well as the ld. CIT(A) against the assessee is ex-parte. The ld. counsel for the assessee pleaded that the assessee could not participate in the assessment proceedings as he had not received any notice.
Per contra, the ld. DR fairly conceded that the orders of the ld. CIT(A) are ex- parte.
Page 3 of 5 view that both the lower authorities ought to have given a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Further, we find that the assessee has filed additional evidence u/r 29 of the I.T. Rules. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, we deem it fit to restore the appeal to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to decide the appeal afresh after affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. and considering the additional evidences furnished by the assessee. The assessee is directed to cooperate with the proceedings and furnish documents/evidence as required by the Assessing Officer. is allowed for statistical purposes.
The order is pronounced in the open court on 22.08.2025.
More judgments on Section 69A
- Vishal Kumar Patel(HUF), Raipur vs DCIT, Circle-1(1), RaipurITA 595/RPR/2026[2017-18]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Ashok Singh, Jaipur vs ACIT, Circle-2 Jaipur, JaipurITA 1540/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Neepaben Sunnybhai Motwani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, RajkotITA 875/RJT/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sukant Kumar vs. Union Of INDIA And 6 OthersAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S New Sana Brick Field vs. Union Of INDIA And 4 OthersAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Vinay Singh vs. Union Of INDIAAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Aaradhyam Infrabuilders PVT LTD vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
