YOGESH PRASAD MISHRA,NOIDA vs. DCIT, TAX,DDIT/ADIT (INTL. TAX), NOIDA, NOIDA

PDF · subscribers
ITITA 110/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 May 2026AY 2016-173 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and documents. It was felt that the assessee deserved the benefit of doubt and should be allowed to present the necessary facts regarding the impugned property transaction. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the file of the Ld. AO for a fresh assessment. The ratio decidendi is that in cases where an assessee claims denial of opportunity and offers to produce evidence, and the authorities below have not provided adequate chances, the appellate authority should allow the assessee to present their case for a fair adjudication. The operative direction is to remand the matter for fresh assessment.

What were the facts?

The appeal concerns Assessment Year 2016-17. The assessee, Yogesh Prasad Mishra, is challenging an order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), Noida-2, dated 30.12.2025, which upheld an addition of Rs. 11,42,314/- made by the Ld. AO. The addition was made ex parte under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the grounds that the assessee failed to submit underlying documents pertaining to a property purchase. The assessee also failed to succeed before the Ld. CIT(A), who raised a specific query regarding documentation for the property purchase amount. The assessee, a non-resident during the relevant year, claimed denial of opportunity at both the AO and CIT(A) levels.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition made by the Ld. AO under Section 69 of the Act without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee to submit supporting documents for the property purchase, considering the assessee's non-resident status. Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that they were a non-resident and thus not required to file a return of income. They contended that there was a denial of opportunity at the Ld. AO's level and that the Ld. CIT(A) also did not provide adequate opportunity to file necessary documents. The assessee offered to file the documents before the ITAT. Revenue's Contentions: The Ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “D” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI

For Respondent: Shri Vikram Singh Sharma, Sr. DR
Hearing: 06.05.2026

PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

This appeal arises from order dated 30.12.2025, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”), by Ld. CIT(A), Noida-2.

1.1 In this case, the Ld. AO passed an ex parte order through which an addition of Rs.11,42,314/- was made u/s 69 of the Act. This addition was made by the AO ostensibly on the ground that the underlying documents pertaining to the impugned transaction were never submitted (purchase of property). The aggrieved assessee approached the Ld. CIT(A) where

IT(IT)A No.110 /Del/2026 YOGESH PRASAD MISHRA also he could not succeed since a very specific query was raised regarding presenting documents in support of the amounts spent (impugned) on purchase of property.

1.2 The aggrieved assessee has approached the ITAT with several grounds challenging the action of Ld. CIT(A) and even of the Ld. AO.

2.

Before us the Ld. AR stated that the assessee was a non-resident during the year under consideration and therefore he was not required to file any return of income. It was stated that while there was denial of opportunity at the level of Ld. AO, the Ld. CIT(A) also did not give adequate opportunity to file the necessary documents. The Ld. AR offered to file the documents before the ITAT.

2.1 The Ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below.

3.

We have carefully considered the rival submissions and have gone through the documents before us. It is felt that the assessee deserves the benefit of doubt and that he may be allowed to present the necessary facts regarding the impugned property transaction. For this purpose, we set aside the impugned order and remand this matter back to the file of Ld. AO for fresh assessment.

4.

In the result, appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

IT(IT)A No.110 /Del/2026 YOGESH PRASAD MISHRA Order pronounced in the open court on 06.05.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD) (SANJAY AWASTHI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated:06.05.2026 *Kavita Arora, Sr. P.S. Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI

Sr. No. Particulars Date 1 Date of dictation of Tribunal Order 30.04.2026 2 Date on which typed draft Tribunal Order is placed before the Dictation 05.05.2026 Member 3 06.05.2026 Date on which typed draft Tribunal Order is placed before the other Member (in the case of DB) 4 Date on which the approved draft Tribunal Order comes to the Sr. P.S. /P.S. 06.05.2026 5 Date on which the fair Tribunal Order is placed before the Dictating Member 06.05.2026 for sign 6 06.05.2026 Date on which the fair Order is placed before the other Member for sign (in the case of DB) 7 Date on which the signed order comes back to the Sr. P.S. /P.S for uploading 06.05.2026 on ITAT website 8 Date of uploading, if not, reason for not uploading 06.05.2026 9 Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk 06.05.2026 10 Date on which order goes for xerox 11 Date on which the file goes for endorsement 12 Date on which the file goes to the Superintendent/O.S. for checking 13 Date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order 14 Date on which the file goes to dispatch section for dispatch the Tribunal Order 15 Date of dispatch of order 16 Date on which file goes to Record Room after dispatch the order

More judgments on Section 69

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →