SUKHBIR SINGH,SONIPAT HARYANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -4, SONEPAT, SONIPAT, HARYANA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2224/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 April 2026AY 2017-182 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment. The assessee was directed to respond to the AO's notices without fail.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 11,50,000/- under Section 69A for cash deposits during demonetization. The assessee failed to respond to notices from both the AO and the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte assessment and appellate orders were justified given the assessee's non-response to notices, and if a denovo assessment is warranted.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Hearing: 13/04/2026Pronounced: 13/04/2026

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण धिल्ली पीठ “एस एम सी”, धिल्ली श्री धिकास अिस्थी, न्याधयक सिस्य IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”, DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आअसं.2224/धिल्ली/2026 (धि.ि. 2017-18) ITA No.2224/DEL/2026 (A.Y.2017-18)

Sukhbir Singh, House Number 351, Bajidpur Saboli, Nathupur, Sonipat, Haryana 131029 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant PAN: CQPPS-7503-B बिाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, ..... प्रधििािी/Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, Sonipat, Haryana 131029 अपीलार्थी द्वारा/Appellant by : Shri Madhav Gawri, Advocate प्रधििािीद्वारा/Respondent by : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR सुििाई की धिधर्थ/Date of hearing : 13/04/2026 घोषणा की धिधर्थ/Date of pronouncement : 13/04/2026 आिेश/ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM:

This appeal by the assessee is directed against an ex-parte order of the Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Vododara [in short ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 12.12.2025, for Assessment Year 2017-18.

2.

The Assessing Officer (AO), in ex-parte assessment proceedings made addition of Rs.11,50,000/- u/s.69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) in respect of cash deposits in the HDFC Bank account and Oriental Bank of Commerce account during demonetization period. Notices u/s 142(1) were issued to the assessee. Since there was no response to the notices issued by the AO, the AO invoked the provisions of section 144 of the Act and completed the assessment by making addition of Rs.11,50,000/-. In First Appellate proceedings multiple notices were issued to the assessee on the email address provided in Form No.35, but the assessee failed to respond to the notices.

2 ITA No. 2224/DEL/2026 (A.Y.2017-18) 3. Considering entire facts and in the interest of justice, I deem it appropriate to restore this matter to the AO for denovo assessment after affording reasonable opportunity of making submission to the assessee, in accordance with law.

4.

The assessee upon service of notice by the AO shall respond to the same, without fail.

5.

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on Monday the 13th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) न्याधयक सिस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER धिल्ली/Delhi, धििांक/Dated 24/04/2026

NV/- प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलार्थी/The Appellant , 1. प्रधििािी/ The Respondent. 2. 3. The PCIT/CIT(A) धिभागीय प्रधिधिधि, आय.अपी.अधि., दिल्ली /DR, ITAT, धिल्ली 4. गार्ड फाइल/Guard file. 5.

BY ORDER, //True Copy//

(Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, DELHI

More judgments on Section 69A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →