What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, remanded the matter back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to decide the appeal afresh after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The assessee appealed an order from the CIT(A) for AY 2023-24. The assessee's counsel requested an adjournment, which was rejected. The assessee argued that the lower authorities made estimations without properly appreciating facts and evidence.

What were the issues?

Whether the lower authorities erred in making estimations without proper appreciation of facts and evidence, and whether the assessee deserves another opportunity to present their case.

Gagandeep Singh Luthra, Mohali vs ITO | ITAT Chandigarh 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DIVISION BENCH, ‘A’ CHANDIGARH

Before: SHRI LALIET KUMAR & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL

For Appellant: Shri Atul Goyal, CA

For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT Sr.DR

Hearing: 06.07.2026Pronounced: 14.07.2026

आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण,च�डीगढ़ �यायपीठ, च�डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘A’ CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 956/CHD/2026 �नधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year: 2023-24 Gagandeep Singh Luthra, The ITO, SCO H06 Ansal Golf Links, Vs Ward 6(4), Sector 114, Mohali. Chandigarh. �थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ACTPL8849B अपीलाथ�/Appellant ��यथ�/Respondent Assessee by : Shri Atul Goyal, CA Revenue by : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 06.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 14.07.2026

PHYSICAL HEARING O R D E R PER LALIET KUMAR, JM

This is an appeal filed by the assessee feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC [in short ‘the CIT (A)’] dated 18.02.2026 passed for assessment year 2023-24.

At the time of hearing, ld. counsel for the assessee has filed an application requesting the adjourn the appeal to some later date. On considering the contents of the application, we are not

ITA No.956/CHD/2026 A.Y.2023-24 2

convinced with the reasons given for adjournment. Accordingly,

the Adjournment Application is rejected and the appeal is being

taken to be decided on merits.

In this case, the ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted

that ld.CIT (Appeals) has passed the impugned order without

proper appreciation of facts, evidences and submissions of the

assessee. It has been further submitted that the ld. AO as well as

ld.CIT (Appeals) have erred in making estimation without pointing

out any error in the books of accounts.

In the proceedings before this Tribunal, it was submitted by

the ld. counsel for the assessee that the assessee deserves to be

given one more opportunity. Therefore, the ld. counsel for the

assessee prays that one more opportunity may kindly be granted

to the assessee to substantiate the claims made in the grounds of

appeal.

The ld. DR has opposed the grant of opportunity.

Having heard the rival contentions, in the interest of justice,

the matter is remanded back to the file of ld.CIT (Appeals) with

direction to decide the appeal afresh in accordance with law after

ITA No.956/CHD/2026 A.Y.2023-24 3

giving sufficient and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the

assessee. The assessee is directed to fully cooperate in the remand

proceedings and furnish all supporting evidence and explanations

as may be called for by the ld.CIT (Appeals).

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

Order pronounced on 14.07.2026. Sd/- Sd/-

(MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) (LALIET KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER “Poonam” आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant 1. ��यथ�/ The Respondent 2. आयकर आयु�/ CIT 3. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, च�डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 4. गाड� फाईल/ Guard File 5.

सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar

GAGANDEEP SINGH LUTHRA,MOHALI vs. ITO, WARD 6(4), CHANDIGARH, MOHALI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments