RAJ KUMAR GADHIYA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-4(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 64/HYD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 September 2026AY 2017-1816 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 680 days in filing the appeal, subject to a payment of Rs. 10,000/- to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund. The appeal was admitted for adjudication on merits. Regarding the merits of the case, the Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer made the addition under Section 69A because the assessee had not declared any cash in hand in the income tax returns for the relevant assessment years and had not provided full details of the HUF accounts and cash flow statements. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition in the absence of the assessee's representation. Considering the facts and circumstances and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The Assessing Officer was directed to consider the complete details and evidence filed by the assessee and provide a proper opportunity of hearing before passing a fresh order. The issue of whether the CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice was implicitly addressed by remanding the case for fresh adjudication with proper opportunity. The specific issue of the addition under Section 69A was not decided on merits but was remanded for fresh consideration.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Raj Kumar Gadhiya, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) challenging the order dated 31.12.2023 passed by the CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi, for Assessment Year 2017-2018. There was a delay of 680 days in filing the appeal. The assessee attributed the delay to a long gap between filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and the commencement of hearing proceedings, non-usage of an old email ID leading to missed notices, and prolonged medical issues faced by himself and his mother. The revenue opposed the condonation of delay, arguing that the reasons provided were insufficient for such a significant delay. The ITAT, considering the medical records and the assessee's explanation, condoned the delay of 680 days subject to a cost of Rs. 10,000/- to be paid to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund. The appeal was then admitted for adjudication on merits.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A) grossly erred in dismissing the appeal without giving a proper opportunity of hearing, thereby violating the principles of natural justice, and if so, whether the order is liable to be set aside? (Question of law and fact) 2. Whether the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 27,23,984/- as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (Question of law and fact) Assessee's Contentions: - The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without providing a proper opportunity of hearing, violating principles of natural justice. The delay in filing the appeal was due to unavoidable circumstances, including medical issues and communication problems with the old email ID. The assessee has a strong case on merits, and dismissing the appeal on technical grounds would cause grave injustice. - The addition of Rs. 27,23,984/- as unexplained money is unjustified. The assessee claims to have explained the source of cash deposits through opening cash balance in his savings and business accounts, cash in hand, and cash held by his HUF. He referred to his capital account, statement of affairs, and HUF balance sheets to substantiate the availability of sufficient cash. The assessee also highlighted his GST registration and property income as sources of funds. Revenue's Contentions: - The revenue opposed the condonation of delay, arguing that the assessee had not explained a sufficient cause for the 680-day delay, considering the medical treatment and lack of knowledge of the order as insufficient reasons for such a prolonged delay. - The Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the opening balance of the assessee's HUF for want of declaration in the return of income. The assessee failed to explain the source of cash before the Assessing Officer or the CIT(A), thus not discharging the onus under Section 69A.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD

Pronounced: 23.09.2026

This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the Order dated 31.12.2023 of the learned CIT(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short "NFAC"], Delhi, for the assessment year 2017-2018. 2. There is a delay of 680 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay which is supported by the affidavit of the assessee. The learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that the appeal before the learned CIT(A) was filed in the

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 →