RISHI BHUCHAR,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 30(1), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2894/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 August 2026AY 2016-174 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not condoned the delay and had passed ex parte orders without proper fact-finding. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matters back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits, condoning the delay for AY 2015-16.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals for AY 2015-16 and 2016-17, but faced delays in filing. The CIT(A) did not condone the delay for AY 2015-16 and passed ex parte orders for both years, confirming additions made under Section 69A.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay and passing ex parte orders without proper adjudication. Whether the additions made under Section 69A were justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “E” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI VIMAL KUMAR & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Sharma, CA & Shri P.K. Bansal, Adv
For Respondent: Shri Tarun Sharda, Sr. DR
Hearing: 20.08.2026

ITA Nos. 2893 & 2894/DEL/2026 RISHI BHUCHAR IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “E” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2893/DEL/2026 Assessment Year: 2015-16 RISHI BHUCHAR Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, C-2/2449, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi, Income Tax Office, Delhi 110070. Ward 30(1), PAN No.AEMPB9676D Delhi 110002. Appellant Respondent & ITA No.2894/DEL/2026 Assessment Year: 2016-17 RISHI BHUCHAR Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, C-2/2449, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi, Income Tax Office, Delhi 110070. Ward 30(1), PAN No.AEMPB9676D Delhi 110002. Appellant Respondent Assessee by Shri Tarun Sharma, CA & Shri P.K. Bansal, Adv. Revenue by Shri Tarun Sharda, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 20.08.2026 Pronouncement on 20.08.2026 O R D E R PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

This is a batch of two appeals of the same assessee for Assessment Years 2015-16 and 2016-17. ITA No.2893/Del/2026 (AY 2015-16) arises from order dated 20.01.2026, through order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”), by NFAC. ITA No.2894/Del/2026 arises from order dated 20.01.2026, u/s 250 of the Act by NFAC.

ITA Nos. 2893 & 2894/DEL/2026 RISHI BHUCHAR 1.1 In ITA No.2893/Del/2026, it is seen that the Ld. CIT(A) has mentioned in para 2 at page 2 of his order that the delay in filing of the appeal (about 10 to 12 days) was not condoned in spite of the fact that the assessee had mentioned in Form 35 that there were medical reasons for the said delay. However, the Ld. CIT(A) then proceeded ahead to decide the case on merits also and confirmed the addition of Rs.70,00,000/- made u/s 69A of the Act, though in an ex parte manner. Needless to say, the appeal of the assessee was rejected.

1.2 In ITA No.2894/Del/2026, it is seen that the Ld. CIT(A) passed an ex parte order confirming the action of Ld. AO in terms of an addition of Rs.130,00,000/- made u/s 69A of the Act. Since the assessee was unresponsive, hence, the order was passed against the assessee in an ex parte manner.

2.

The aggrieved assessee has challenged these two appellate orders on merits as well as on grounds of denial of opportunity.

3.

Before us the Ld. AR stated that for AY 2015-16, a short delay was not condoned in spite of fact that the assessee was prevented by medical reasons from filing the appeal on time. For AY 2016-17 and even the other appeal, it was mentioned that due to a communication gap between the assessee and his tax consultant, timely compliance could not be made before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. AR prayed for one more opportunity to present the facts before the authorities below.

ITA Nos. 2893 & 2894/DEL/2026 RISHI BHUCHAR 3.1 The Ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below.

4.

We have heard the rival submissions and have gone through the records before us. It is seen that on the one hand the Ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay in ITA No.2893/Del/2026 and in spite of that has adjudicated on merit, that too in an ex parte manner. In ITA No.2894/Del/2026 also the impugned order is extremely cryptic and has been passed in an ex parte manner. It is felt that since this is a fact- based case hence it is not possible to adjudicate in these two matters until and unless proper fact finding has been done by lower levels. Accordingly, we deem it fit to set aside the impugned orders for both the years and thereby remand the same to the file of Ld. CIT(A). We condone the delay in ITA No.2893/Del/2026 and remit the matter for a decision on merits. Similarly for ITA No.2894/Del/2026 the matter is remanded back for a decision on merit by the Ld. CIT(A).

5.

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 20.08.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (VIMAL KUMAR) (SANJAY AWASTHI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 21.08.2026 *Kavita Arora, Sr. P.S.

ITA Nos. 2893 & 2894/DEL/2026 RISHI BHUCHAR

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →