JUSBINDER KOUR ,UTTAR PRADESH vs. ITO WARD 3 (1) (2) , MUZAFFARNAGAR

ITA 4452/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 September 2026AY 2020-216 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the assessee's appeal ex-parte without deciding the issues on merits. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was a non-speaking, cryptic order, passed in violation of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (now Section 359(4) of the Income-tax Act, 2025). The CIT(A) was obligated to pass a reasoned and speaking order on merits. The Tribunal noted that while the assessee was equally responsible for not complying with the notices, the CIT(A) should have still adjudicated the issues on merits. The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) did not conduct any inquiry or call for assessment records. Therefore, the appellate order of the CIT(A) was set aside. The matter was remanded back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after giving proper opportunity of being heard to both parties. The assessee was directed to comply with the notices in the set-aside remand proceedings, failing which the CIT(A) would be free to decide the appeal ex-parte on merits. The Tribunal clarified that it had not commented on the merits of the issues. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Jusbinder Kour, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] dated January 29, 2026, which upheld the assessment order dated January 16, 2025, passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under sections 147, 144, and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2020-21. The appeal was filed with a delay of 23 days, which the ITAT condoned. The AO had initiated reassessment proceedings under section 148 after receiving information about cash deposits of Rs. 21,90,000 and purchase of immovable property for Rs. 74,00,000, which were not commensurate with the declared income. Despite notices, the assessee did not respond. Information from banks revealed total cash deposits and other credits of Rs. 80,94,750 (excluding a loan of Rs. 34,00,000). The AO added Rs. 80,94,750 under section 69A and Rs. 74,00,000 under section 69 as unexplained income. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte due to non-compliance with four notices.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the assessee's appeal ex-parte without deciding the issues on merits, in violation of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contentions: - The CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without deciding the issues on merits, violating Section 250(6). - The assessee submitted bank statements and stated that loans availed from banks need to be excluded, which requires verification. - Due to health conditions, the assessee could not comply with the AO. The assessee availed a home loan and amounts from relatives for property acquisition, which can be verified. - The assessee prayed for one more opportunity to submit all relevant details and requested the matter be restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Revenue's Contentions: - The learned Senior DR relied upon the appellate order passed by the CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 133(6),Section 69A,Section 69,Section 253(3),Section 250(6),Section 253,Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘H’: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR & SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Kumar Jha,Adv. & Ms
Hearing: 29.09.2026Pronounced: 30.09.2026

PER RAMIT KOCHAR, AM:

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the appellate order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal, NFAC, Delhi [‘CIT(A)’ in short] dated 29.01.2026 u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961(DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/ 250 / 2025-26/1085289894(1)), which appeal in turn has arisen from the assessment order dated 16.01.2025 passed by the learned Assessing Officer u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the 1961 Act (DIN No. ITBA/AST/S/147/2024-25/1072237455(1)).

2 Jusbinder Kour.

2.

It is observed that this appeals is filed belatedly by assess

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 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →