What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A).

The Assessing Officer made additions on account of cash deposits and property investments. The assessee failed to comply with notices from the CIT(A), leading to an ex parte confirmation of the additions.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was denied a proper opportunity of being heard by the CIT(A) and if the matter should be remanded for fresh adjudication.

Gajendra Singh vs ITO | s.250 | ITAT Dehradun 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SMC: DEHRADUN BENCH

Before: SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Sharma, CA

For Respondent: Shri Mohan Lal Joshi, Sr. DR

Hearing: 23.07.2026Pronounced: 23.07.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC: DEHRADUN BENCH BEFORE SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.- 315/DDN/2026 [Assessment Year: 2020-21] Gajendra Singh, ITO, 36, Ghamandpur, Dehradun, Ward-1(1)(1), Uttarakhand-855455. Vs Dehradun, Uttarkhand-248001. PAN- EETPS5685Q Assessee Revenue Assessee by Shri Tarun Sharma, CA Revenue by Shri Mohan Lal Joshi, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 23.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement 23.07.2026 ORDER Per Sanjay Awasthi, Accountant Member:

This appeal arises from the order dated 05.03.2026, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as’ the Act’), by the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi.

1.1 In this case, the Ld. AO is seen to have made an addition on account of cash deposit in OMAXE Group and also investments in commercial properties.

ITA No.- 315/DDN/2026 Gajendra Singh 1.2 Aggrieved, the assessee approached the Ld. CIT(A), where he did not comply to the notices giving opportunities of hearing. This fact is recorded on page no. 3 of the impugned order. Needless to say, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Ld. AO in an ex parte manner.

1.3 Aggrieved, the assessee has approached the ITAT with grounds challenging the addition on merits.

Before us, Ld. AR took us through the assessment order and the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and it was pointed out that due to a communication gap between the assessee and his tax consultant, proper compliance could not be made before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. AR prayed for one more opportunity to present the facts before the Ld. CIT(A).

2.1 The Ld. DR, on the other hand, relied on the orders of the authorities below.

We have considered the rival contentions and have gone through the records before us. It is seen that the assessee was well-aware of the proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A), since on one or two occasions, he filed applications seeking adjournment of the case. However, in the interests of substantive justice, we deem it fit to set aside the impugned order and remit this matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. We may indicate that in case, the assessee is not

ITA No.- 315/DDN/2026 Gajendra Singh vigilant about the opportunities provided to him, then the Ld. CIT(A) may take an adverse view, in case the facts on record so warrant.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 23.07.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN] [SANJAY AWASTHI] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated- 21 .08.2026. Pooja. Copy forwarded to: 1. Assessee 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR

Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi,

GAJENDRA SINGH,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, WARD-1(1)(1) DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN

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