What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal decided to give the assessee another opportunity to present their case due to lack of representation. The issue of cash deposits during demonetization was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The assessee did not appear before the lower authorities. The appeal was filed against an assessment order passed under Section 144 of the Act for AY 2017-18.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was provided adequate opportunity to represent their case before the lower authorities, especially concerning cash deposits during demonetization.

Mukesh, Panipat vs ITO | s.144 | ITAT Delhi 2026

Before: MS MADHUMITA ROY

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCHES, NEW DELHI, BENCH: SMC BEFORE MS MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA 2446/DEL/2026 िनधा�रण वष�/Assmt. Year: 2017-18) Permanent Account Number: CBDPM8101Q MUKESH INCOME TAX OFFICER, DAMYANA, PANIPAT H.O., WARD - 1, PANIPAT PANIPAT, PANIPAT-132103, Vs. HARYANA (��थ� Respondent) (अपीलाथ� Appellant)

िनधा�रती �ारा/Assessee represented by: Sh. Ashok Goyal, CA राजस् व �ारा/Revenue represented by: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of conclusion of hearing: 13-May-2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of pronouncement: May, 2026 आदेश / ORDER PER MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The instant appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 30.05.2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the Ld. CIT(A)] under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) arising out of the Assessment Order dated 15.11.2019 passed by the ITO, Ward-2, Panipat (hereinafter referred to as ‘the ld. AO’) under Section 144 of the Act for Assessment Year 2017-18.

ITA 2446/DEL/2026 MUKESH

Heard the parties and perused the record.

Having regard to the fact of no representation being made by the assessee before the authorities below, in order to prevent the miscarriage of justice, I am of the considered opinion that the assessee be given a further opportunity to represent its case effectively before the authorities below. This appeal is disposed of by remitting the issue to the file of Ld. AO for consideration of the issue afresh, particularly, in regard to the cash deposit of Rs.23,70,500/- during demonetization and the Ld.AO is directed to finalise the assessment upon considering the evidence on record or any other evidence which the assessee may choose to file at the time of hearing of the matter.

It is also made clear that in the event the assessee does not cooperate with the Ld. AO, the said authority would be at liberty to proceed strictly in accordance with the law.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 26.05.2026. Sd/-

(MADHUMITA ROY) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 26th May, 2026. dk

ITA 2446/DEL/2026 MUKESH

Copy to:

MUKESH, DAMYANA, PANIPAT H.O., PANIPAT, 1 PANIPAT-132103, HARYANA

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, PANIPAT, 2 INCOME TAX OFFICE, PALIKA BAZAR, PANIPAT-132103, HARYANA 3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, DELHI BENCH 5 GUARD FILE

MUKESH,PANIPAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, PANIPAT, PANIPAT

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