ABHISHEK KUMAR,MORADABAD vs. ITO WARD 2(1), MORADABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2198/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 August 2026AY 2023-245 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the NFAC should have admitted the additional evidence and decided the appeals on merits. The orders were set aside, and the issues were restored to the NFAC for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals against the NFAC's dismissal orders for AY 2022-23 and 2023-24 were heard together. The NFAC had dismissed the appeals without admitting additional evidence filed by the assessee and without deciding on merits.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A)/NFAC erred in not admitting additional evidence and passing ex-parte orders without deciding on merits. Whether the assessment orders were bad-in-law and without jurisdiction.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SH. M. BALAGANESH & SH. SUDHIR KUMAR&

Hearing: 22/07/2026Pronounced: 12/08/2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”, DELHI

BEFORE SH. M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA No.2197/DEL/2026 (AY 2022-23) & ITA No. 2198/Del/2026 [AY 2023-24] Abhishek Kumar Vs. ITO Ward-2(1) Moradabad Near Peetal Basti Nand Colony Moradabad -244001 Moradabad (Uttar Pradesh) PAN No.AAFPA2124G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)

Appellant by Sh. Pranav Yadav, Advocate Respondent by Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta Sr. DR

Date of hearing: 22/07/2026 Date of Pronouncement: 12/08/2026 ORDER PER SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

These are appeals filed by the assessee against the separate orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “Ld. NFAC”] relevant to assessment year 2022-23 & 2023-24 respectively. Since these

appeals are related with one assessee thus, these were heard together and disposed by this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds in appeal no 2197/Del/2026 (AY 2022-23):- 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the assessment order passed by the assessing officer is bad-in- law illegal without jurisdiction and CIT(A) erred in not holding so. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in not admitting the additional evidence filed before him. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in not providing proper opportunity of being heard. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) appeal order passed is against the principle of natural justice 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the assessing Officer of Rs.25,00,000/- on the account of alleged cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. 3. The following grounds have been raised in the appeal 2198/Del/2026 (AY 2023-24) :-

1.On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the assessment order passed by the assessing officer is bad-in- law illegal without jurisdiction and CIT(A) erred in not holding so. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in not providing proper opportunity of being heard. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) appeal order passed is against the principal of natural justice. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the assessing officer of Rs.1,12,45,346/- on the account of alleged cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed the return of income for the relevant A.Yrs. and the case of the assessee were selected for the Scrutiny for the both Assessment years. The Assessing officer completed the assessment orders after making the additions for the both Assessment years. Aggrieved the order of the Assessing Officer the assessee filed the appeal before the Ld. NFAC, who dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Being aggrieved the order of the Ld. NFAC the assessee is in appeal before the tribunal. 5. We have heard both parties and gone through the material available on record.

6.

The Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that assessee before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has filed the application under Rule 46A(2) of the Income Tax Rules to file the additional evidences which was rejected by the Ld. NFAC without assigning any reason and dismissed the appeal by passing an exparte order. The Ld. NFAC in the present appeals have not decided the appeal on merits which was supposed to do as per the provisions of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) which reads as under:- “The order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) or as case may be the Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination the decision thereon and the reason for the decision.” 7. Since Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed both the appeals without admitted the additional evidence filed by assessee, however, the same should have been decided after admitting the additional evidences filed by the assessee. It was further noted that both the appeals were dismissed vide respective exparte orders without considering the merits, therefore the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem fit it proper to restore the issues to the files of the Ld. NFAC with a direction to admit the additional evidences filed by the assessee and to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its claim and decide the issues as per fact and

law and pass a speaking order on merits. The assessee is also directed to appear before the NFAC and substantiate its case without seeking any adjournment. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes in both the appeals. 8. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 12.08.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (M. BALAGANESH) (SUDHIR KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Date: 12.08.2026 Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) ` 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT DELHI

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →