ANIL KUMAR AGARWAL,ALIGARH vs. DCIT CIRCLE 4(1)(1), ALIGARH

PDF · subscribers
ITA 214/AGR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Agra09 July 2026AY 2021-223 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to be diligent and cooperative in future hearings, and the CIT(A) was instructed to ensure the principles of natural justice are observed.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte, confirming an addition of Rs. 7,45,81,747/-. The CIT(A) had issued multiple notices, but the assessee failed to respond.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without affording a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69C,Section 250,Section 143(3),Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA (DB

Before: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH & SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH

For Respondent: Smt Sangeeta Yadav, CIT (DR)
Hearing: 07.07.2026Pronounced: 07.07.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA (DB) BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 214/Agr/2026 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Anil Kumar Agarwal, Vs. DCIT Circle 4(1)(1), Om Sons Industries, Aligarh-202001 Chiranjilal Ka Patch, Delhi Gate, Aligarh-202001 PAN : AAJPA7556N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Department by Smt Sangeeta Yadav, CIT (DR) Date of hearing 07.07.2026 Date of pronouncement 07.07.2026 ORDER PER: SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, J.M.

This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 05.01.2026 passed in appeal No NFAC/2020-21/10223132 by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A) u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for the A.Y. 2021-22, wherein ld CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s appeal ex-parte, confirming the addition of Rs. 7,45,81,747/- made in the income of the assessee u/s 69C of the Act, vide

ITA No.214/Agr/2026

assessment order dated 30.12.2022 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act. 2. Appellant assessee has preferred this second appeal on the various grounds including the one that that ld CIT(A) has confirmed the said additions without affording proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 3. Perused the records. None responded for the appellant assessee. Heard ld CIT (DR) in attendance for the respondent revenue. 4. It transpires form the perusal of records that notices on 04.08.2025, 12.11.2025 and 27.11.2025 were issued by the first appellate authority to the assessee. However, the assessee did not respond in compliance thereof. The ld CIT(A) was thus compelled to pass impugned order ex- parte. The non-cooperative conduct of the assessee cannot be appreciated. However, in the interest of justice, we deem it just and appropriate to restore the matter back to the file of ld CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. We, further, direct the assessee to be diligent and cooperative in attending the hearings and making submissions before the ld CIT(A) for the expeditious and effective disposal. Needless to say that ld CIT(A) shall ensure the observance of the principles of natural justice. The appeal is liable to be allowed for statistical purposes.

2 | P a g e

ITA No.214/Agr/2026

5.

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

Order pronounced in the Open Court on - 07.07.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH) (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dated:09.07.2026 *Aamir Siddiqui, PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Agra

3 | P a g e

More judgments on Section 69C

All 8,217 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69C →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →