MANOJ KUMAR SAHU,ASHOK NAGAR vs. ITO ASHOK NAGAR, ASHOK NAGAR

ITA 561/AGR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Agra01 October 2026AY 2024-253 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that while the assessee's non-cooperative conduct was noted, in the interest of justice, it was deemed appropriate to restore the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The Tribunal directed the assessee to be diligent and cooperative in attending hearings and making submissions before the CIT(A) for expeditious and effective disposal. The CIT(A) was also directed to ensure observance of the principles of natural justice. The issue of the addition of Rs. 35,86,000/- under Section 69A was not decided on merits by the ITAT. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Manoj Kumar Sahu, is in appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) against an order dated 20.05.2026 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte, upholding an addition of Rs. 35,86,000/- made under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as undisclosed money. This addition was originally made by the Assessing Officer (AO) via an assessment order dated 16.02.2026 passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B. The assessment year in question is 2024-25. The assessee's appeal to the ITAT was based on grounds including the lack of a proper opportunity of hearing by the CIT(A). An adjournment application by the assessee was rejected.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 35,86,000/- as undisclosed money under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without affording the assessee a proper opportunity of hearing? Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that the CIT(A) confirmed the addition without providing a proper opportunity of hearing. The assessee's adjournment application was rejected. Revenue's contentions: The revenue, through the Senior Departmental Representative (Sr. DR), did not explicitly argue on the merits of the addition. However, the records indicated that the CIT(A) had issued multiple notices to the assessee, to which the assessee did not respond, leading to an ex-parte order. The Sr. DR was heard in attendance.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA (SMC

Before: SUNIL KUMAR SINGH & BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH

For Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr (DR)
Hearing: 30.09.2026Pronounced: 30.09.2026

PER: SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, J.M.

This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 20.05.2026 passed in appeal No NFAC/2023-24/10573934 by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax/ (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. 2024-25, wherein ld CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s appeal ex-parte, confirming the addition of Rs. 35,86,000/- made in the income of the assessee u/s 69A of the Act, as undisclosed money, vide assessment order dated 16.02.2026 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act.

2.

Appellant assessee has preferred this second appeal on various grounds including one that the ld CIT(A) has confirmed the impugned addition without affording

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 69A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →