SULEKHA GUPTA,SHEOPURKALAN vs. ITO-1, MORENA, GWALIOR

ITA 317/AGR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Agra12 October 2026AY 2020-213 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that while the assessee's non-cooperative conduct in not responding to the notices issued by the CIT(A) was not appreciated, 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 an expeditious and effective disposal. It was also emphasized that the CIT(A) must ensure the observance of the principles of natural justice. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. No specific finding was given on the addition of Rs. 62,21,000/- as the matter was remanded.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sulekha Gupta, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) against an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC. The assessment year in question is 2020-21. The ITAT order under challenge is the CIT(A)'s order dated 16.01.2026, which confirmed an addition of Rs. 62,21,000/- as unexplained cash deposit. This addition was made pursuant to an assessment order dated 17.03.2025, passed under sections 147, 144, and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee's appeal to the ITAT was filed with a delay of approximately 7 days, which the Tribunal condoned. The primary grievance of the assessee was that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex-parte without providing an adequate opportunity of hearing.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC erred in dismissing the assessee's appeal ex-parte, thereby confirming the addition of Rs. 62,21,000/-, without affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee, as per the principles of natural justice, turning on Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the CIT(A) confirmed the addition of Rs. 62,21,000/- ex-parte, without granting a proper opportunity for hearing. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through the Senior Departmental Representative, did not explicitly present arguments on the merits of the addition. However, the records indicated that the CIT(A) had issued multiple notices to the assessee (dated 16.07.2025, 03.10.2025, and 08.12.2025) during the first appellate proceedings, to which the assessee did not respond. This non-compliance led the CIT(A) to pass an ex-parte order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA (DB

Before: SUNIL KUMAR SINGHBRAJESH KUMAR SINGH

For Appellant: Shri Divyanshu Porwal, CA
For Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr (DR)
Hearing: 12.10.2026Pronounced: 12.10.2026

PER:SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, J.M.

This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 16.01.2026 passed in appeal No NFAC/2019-20/10477266 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. 2020-21, wherein ld CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s appeal ex-parte, confirming the addition of Rs. 62,21,000/- as unexplained cash deposit made vide assessment order dated 17.03.2025, passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act.

2.

At the very outset, according to registry’s report, the appellant filed this appeal on 09.04.2026 by a delay of about 7 days. The reasons mentioned in assessee’s delay cond

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 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →