KANHIYA LAL GAUTAM,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 54(3), NEW DELHI

ITA 4007/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 September 2026AY 2017-184 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal considered the findings of the lower authorities and the arguments presented. It was of the view that the matter should be remanded back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal directed the Ld. CIT(A) to provide adequate opportunity to the appellant for being heard and also directed the assessee to file all relevant details and documents in a timely manner. The Tribunal did not decide the merits of the additions made by the AO or upheld by the CIT(A), but rather focused on the procedural aspect of providing a fair hearing. The ratio decidendi is that an ex-parte order, if challenged with new evidence, should be re-examined by the appellate authority after giving the assessee a proper opportunity to present their case.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Kanhiya Lal Gautam, filed an appeal against the order dated 03.07.2024 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, New Delhi, for Assessment Year 2017-18. The Assessing Officer (AO) had passed an ex-parte assessment order under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, making additions of Rs. 1,85,93,020/- and Rs. 2,32,68,230/- under Section 69. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's order, noting the assessee's non-appearance and failure to provide details regarding foreign activity or non-resident status, and also for not furnishing documentary evidence for bringing Euros from Paris and converting them into Indian currency. The total tax effect of the additions was Rs. 2,32,68,230/-.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the learned CIT(Appeals) erred in law by upholding the unjustified ex-parte order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 144 and the additions of Rs. 1,85,93,020/- and Rs. 2,32,68,230/- under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Whether the learned CIT(Appeals) erred in law by upholding the unjustified ex-parte order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 144, which is against the principles of natural justice. Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that they now possess evidence to support their claims. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue relied on the orders of the lower authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 69

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI

Before: SH. SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SH. KRINWANT SAHAY

Hearing: 24/09/2026Pronounced: 29/09/2026

PER KRINWANT SAHAY AM

Appeal in this case has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 03.07.2024 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC New Delhi for the A.Y. 2017-18. Grounds of appeal are as under :-

1.

That on the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in law while upholding the unjustified exparte order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 144 and the additions of Rs 185,93,020/- u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act. Rs.2,32,68,230/-

2.

That on the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in law while upholding the unjustified exparte order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 144 and it is against the principles of natural justice.

3.

Tha

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →