What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to provide substantive findings and agreed with the assessee's submission for remand. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The assessee's appeal for AY 2017-18 concerns an addition of Rs. 82.10 Lacs made by the AO for cash deposits. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's view without providing substantive findings.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) properly adjudicated the appeal by providing substantive findings on the merits of the case.

Mukesh Kumar HUF, Ludhiana vs Jao the Income Tax Officer Ward… | s.143(3) | ITAT Chandigarh 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH

Before: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM & HON’BLE SHRI RAJESH DAMODARLAL SHARMA, JM

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH HYBRID HEARING BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM AND HON’BLE SHRI RAJESH DAMODARLAL SHARMA, JM आयकरअपीलसं./ ITA No.1451/CHANDI/2025 (िनधा�रणवष� / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Mukesh Kumar HUF ITO Ward – 4(1) Prop. M/S Neelkanth Steel Industries Aaykar Bhawan, Rishi Nagar बनाम/ Vs. 502, Industrial Area – B Ludhiana, Punjab – 141001 Overlock Road, Ludhiana Punjab – 141003 �ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AAHHM-7740-J (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) : (��थ� / Respondent) अपीलाथ�कीओरसे/ Appellant by : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. AR ��थ�कीओरसे/Respondent by : Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) - Ld. Sr. DR (Virtual) सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 17-08-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement 18-08-2026 : आदेश / O R D E R RAJESH DAMODARLAL SHARMA (Judicial Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18 arises out of an order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC [CIT(A)] dated 23-09-2025 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s 143(3) of the Act on 31.12.2019 making addition of cash deposit for Rs.82.10 Lacs. The

Ld. CIT(A), without any substantive findings, endorsed the view of Ld. AO against which the assessee is in further appeal before us. 2. The Ld. AR stated that the assessee had made elaborate submissions on legal grounds as well as on merits. However, no finding has been rendered by Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order and accordingly, a prayer has been made to remand back the matter to lower authorities. The same has been opposed by Ld. Sr. DR. 3. After going through impugned order, we concur with the submissions of Ld. AR. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is restored back to Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in the light of written submissions as made by the assessee. The assessee is directed to plead and prove its case forthwith. 4. The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 18th August, 2026

-Sd- -Sd- (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) (RAJESH DAMODARLAL SHARMA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AS Dated: 18-08-2026 आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत /Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��थ�/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु�/CIT 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड�फाईल/GF

BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KENDRIYA SADAN, SECTOR – 9A CHANDIGARH

MUKESH KUMAR HUF, LUDHIANA,LUDHIANA vs. JAO THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(1), LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments