DHARMENDER KUMAR,DELHI vs. ITO WARD- 59(6), DELHI, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2943/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 August 2025AY 2017-2018Bench: the CIT(A). A perusal of impugned order reveals that the CIT(A) had issued four notices to the assessee i.e. on 03.03.2021, 12.09.2022, 29.01.2025 & 03.03.2025. There was no response from the assessee's side to the notices issued by the CIT(A). However, it is not emanating from the impugned order as to on which address notices were issued to the assessee and whether the notices were ever served on the assessee or not. Considering entire facts, I deem it appropriate to restore this appeal ba3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed for statistical purpose

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order did not clearly establish proper service of notices to the assessee. Given the assessee's choice for physical notices in Form No. 35, the appeal was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after ensuring due service of physical notices and providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged an ex-parte order of the CIT(A) for AY 2017-18, where an addition of Rs. 9,17,630/- was made under Section 69C for unexplained expenditure related to credit card payments. The original disallowance was made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) ex-parte.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) was valid, considering the ambiguity regarding the proper service of notices to the assessee's address.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “SMC”, DELHI

Hearing: 31/07/2025

ORDER

PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM:

1.

This appeal by the assessee is directed against an ex-parte order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the CIT(A)') dated 07.03.2025, for Assessment Year 2017-18.

2.

A perusal of assessment order shows that addition of Rs.9,17,630/- was made in the hands of the assessee u/s. 69C of the Income Tax Act,1961(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) on account of unexplained expenditure. The assessee has claimed expenditure in respect of payments made through credit card. The Assessing Officer (AO) has disallowed the aforesaid claim (AY 2017-18) of the assessee rejecting the explanation furnished by the assessee. The assessee carried the issue in appeal before the CIT(A). A perusal of impugned order reveals that the CIT(A) had issued four notices to the assessee i.e. on 03.03.2021, 12.09.2022, 29.01.2025 & 03.03.2025. There was no response from the assessee’s side to the notices issued by the CIT(A). However, it is not emanating from the impugned order as to on which address notices were issued to the assessee and whether the notices were ever served on the assessee or not. Considering entire facts, I deem it appropriate to restore this appeal back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after affording reasonable opportunity of making submissions to the assessee, in accordance with law.

3.

A perusal of Form No. 35 reveals that although, the assessee had mentioned email address but in the very next column of Form No. 35 the assessee has opted that the communication/notices be not sent on email. Therefore, in accordance with the option exercised by the assessee/appellant in Form No. 35, the CIT(A) shall issue physical notice to the assessee on the address mentioned in Form No. 35.

4.

The assessee shall respond to the notice(s) served by the CIT(A), without fail.

5.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on Thursday the 31st day of July, 2025.

More judgments on Section 69C

All 8,217 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →