HARPREET SINGH,FEROZEPUR CITY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(1), FEROZEPUR

ITA 814/ASR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 September 2026AY 2020-20216 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that both the Assessing Officer and the First Appellate Authority (NFAC) failed to properly apply their minds to the submissions and evidence furnished by the assessee. The AO made the addition under Section 69A without discussing the nature and acceptability of the assessee's reply and documentary evidence. The NFAC, despite noting that the assessee had furnished submissions and documentary evidence on specific dates, erroneously concluded that no submissions or evidence were filed. The Tribunal found that the departmental authorities mechanically made the addition. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order of the NFAC and restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, with a direction to provide the assessee with a due and reasonable opportunity of being heard. As a result, there is no surviving demand against the assessee, rendering the stay application infructuous.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an individual, failed to file a return of income for Assessment Year 2020-21. The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the assessment upon discovering cash deposits totaling Rs. 29,96,850/- in the assessee's bank account. The AO, unconvinced by the assessee's explanation and documentary evidence, treated Rs. 26,95,975/- as unexplained money under Section 69A and added it to the assessee's income. The assessee appealed to the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi. The NFAC disposed of the appeal ex-parte, confirming the addition, citing the assessee's failure to furnish submissions or evidence. The assessee's appeal to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) challenges the NFAC's order dated 15.04.2026.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the addition of Rs. 26,95,975/- as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is justified, considering the assessee's submissions and evidence? Assessee's contention (as understood from the Tribunal's observations): The assessee argued that they had furnished explanations and documentary evidence to the AO regarding the cash deposits. They also contended that they were denied a personal hearing through video conferencing and that the AO did not properly consider their submissions. Furthermore, the assessee argued that the NFAC incorrectly stated that no submissions or evidence were filed, contradicting its own observations. Revenue's contention: The revenue, represented by the Senior Departmental Representative (Sr. DR), did not present any arguments as the assessee remained absent. The NFAC's order, which confirmed the addition, was based on the premise that the assessee failed to provide supporting evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 139(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR

Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, HON’BLE

For Respondent: Shri Prashant Singh, Sr. DR

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA 814/ASR/2026
SA No. 10/Asr/2026

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

PER: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, V.P.:

Present appeal arises out of order dated 15.04.2026 of National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment year 2020-21. 2. Of course, the stay application filed by the assessee, being SA No. 10/Asr/2026, seeking stay on recovery of demand, is also tagged along with the appeal.

2 Asst. Year: 2020-21

3.

When the matter was called out, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Though the assessee has made a request for adjournment by letter dated 28.09.2026, however, no one was present on behalf of the assessee. Looking at the grounds raised and the nature of dispute, we are of the view that

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 →