INTAZAR ALI,UTTAR PRADESH vs. ITO WARD -2 (1), MORADABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5850/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 August 2026AY 2017-185 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and acknowledged that both the assessment order and the appellate order were ex-parte. Upholding the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to remand the case back to the AO for a fresh assessment.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A)/NFAC. There was a significant delay in filing the appeal, which the tribunal condoned. The assessee argued that both the AO and CIT(A) orders were ex-parte, denying them a proper opportunity to present their case.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessment and appellate orders were passed in violation of natural justice by denying the assessee an adequate opportunity to be heard and present evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 271AAC

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘E’ NEW DELHI

Before: SH. MAHAVIR SINGH & SH. KRINWANT SAHAY

Hearing: 13.08.2026Pronounced: 13.08.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘E’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

I.T A. No.5850/Del/2026 (A.Y 2017-18) Intazar Ali ITO Vs. Ward- 2 (1) H. No. 597, Thakurwara Moradabad Moradabad U.P. PAN No. ANZPA2098N

Appellant by: Sh. V. Rajkumar, Advocate Respondent by : Sh. Tarun Sharda, Sr. DR

Date of Hearing 13.08.2026 Date of Pronouncement 13.08.2026

ORDER PER KRINWANT SAHAY AM Appeal in this case has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 06.11.2025 passed by the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi for the A.Y. 2017-18.

1 | P a g e

2.

Registry has pointed out a delay of 113 days in filing of this appeal. The Ld. Counsel of the assessee has filed an affidavit alongwith an application for condonation of delay which is reproduced as under :-

2 | P a g e

3.

After going through the issue mentioned in the application we are inclined to condone the delay in filing of the appeal. The Ld. DR argued that matter may be decided on merit. The delay in filing of the appeal is hereby condoned and admitted for adjudication.

4.

The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under :-

“1. dismissing the appeal without providing due, proper and adequate opportunity of hearing: 2. confirming the following actions of the Assessment Unit - a. The learned AO erred in completing the assessment ex-parte without appreciating the genuine reasons for noncompliance and without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee to be heard: b. The order violates the principles of natural justice as the appellant was not given an effective opportunity to present his case or submit evidence in support of the cash deposits: c. The addition of Rs.93,58,264 under section 69A is unjustified as the appellant has valid sources/explanations for the cash deposits, which could not be submitted due to ex-parte proceedings: d. The initiation of penalty proceedings under sections 271 AAC is unwarranted in the absence of deliberate default or concealment. The above actions being arbitrary, fallacious, unwarranted and opposed to principles of natural justice must be quashed with directions for appropriate relief.”

3 | P a g e

5.

At the very outset the Ld. Counsel of the assessee brought it to the notice of the Bench that the order passed by the AO and appellate order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) are exparte orders. Thus, the assessee did not get any occasion to file details/ papers relevant to bring on record material facts in the case and made a prayer to remand this case back to the file of the AO.

6.

Per contra the Ld. DR relied on the order of the authorities below.

7.

We have considered the findings given by the authorities below in their respective orders and we have also considered the prayer made by the Ld. Counsel of the assesse.

8.

During proceedings before us we find that both orders passed by the AO and later on the appellate order by the Ld. CIT(A) are exparte. So keeping in view of natural justice that assessee should get an opportunity to bring on record relevant papers and documents, we are inclined to remand this case back to the file of the AO. Thus, the case is remanded back to the file of the AO for denovo order. The assessee is directed to file all the relevant necessary

4 | P a g e

papers and documents/ details before the AO at the earliest so that the Revenue could pass order in time.

9.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 13.08.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- SD (MAHAVIR SINGH) (KRINWANT SAHAY) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated : 19/08/2026 *Neha Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to : 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT (Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI

5 | P a g e

More judgments on Section 69A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →