TAJDIN HASANALI HALANI,ANAND vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1, ANAND

ITA 1105/AHD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 October 2026AY 2018-193 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, considering the facts and circumstances and the nature of the evidence submitted, decided to set aside the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment. The Tribunal reasoned that the evidence had not been examined by the lower authorities and that allowing the assessee to present it before the Assessing Officer would be appropriate. The assessee was directed to participate proactively in the fresh assessment proceedings and submit all necessary details without causing undue delay. The Tribunal did not decide on the merits of the addition itself but remanded the case for a proper examination of the evidence. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Tajdin Hasanali Halani, filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, dated January 28, 2026, for Assessment Year 2018-19. The CIT(A) had confirmed an addition made under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, concerning cash deposits and withdrawals during Financial Year 2017-18. The original assessment was made under Section 144 due to the assessee's failure to submit relevant details. During the appeal before the CIT(A), the assessee sought adjournment but did not file the required details. Before the ITAT, the assessee filed a paper book with additional evidence and an application for its admission, citing a bona fide belief that the case was already subject to remand proceedings due to a mix-up with other family members' appeals.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal should admit additional evidence filed by the assessee at the appellate stage, which was not examined by the Assessing Officer or the CIT(A)? (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and evidence admission). Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the additional evidence was obtained during appellate proceedings and that there was a bona fide belief of remand proceedings due to an inadvertent mix-up with other family members' appeals. The assessee sought to present these details for consideration. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue argued that neither the Assessing Officer nor the CIT(A) had an opportunity to examine the evidence being filed at this stage. The Revenue suggested that the case be remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration of this evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 144,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “A” BENCH

Before: Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha & Shri Tapas Ram Misra

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Thakker, A.R
For Respondent: Shri Amit Pratap Singh, Sr. D.R

PER TAPAS RAM MISRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

The present appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (hereinafter referred to as “NFAC”), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”), dated 28.01.2026 passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and relates to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2018-19. I.T.A No. 1105/Ahd/2026 A.Y. 2018-10

2.

The Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition made u/s 69A of the Act in respect of cash deposits and cash with

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 →