SHWETA GUPTA,GWALIOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 2(2) GWALIOR, GWALIOR

ITA 449/AGR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Agra15 October 2026AY 2019-206 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the CIT(A)'s order was passed without considering the written submissions and list of documents filed in compliance with the notice under Section 250. The Tribunal noted that the E-Acknowledgement of these documents, placed on record, supported the assessee's claim. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the order of the CIT(A) could not be sustained. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, and the matter was set aside and restored back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to consider the submissions and documents filed by the assessee and to allow a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee was also granted liberty to file further details or evidence. The Tribunal did not decide on the merits of the addition itself, as the primary issue was the procedural lapse by the CIT(A).

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sweta Gupta, is in appeal against the order of the CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2019-20. The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated proceedings under Section 148A(b) and subsequently issued a notice under Section 148, alleging bogus purchases of Rs. 57,68,142/- from M/s Aniket Trading. The AO added this amount as unexplained expenditure under Section 69C. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed. The assessee then filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Agra Bench. A key ground raised by the assessee was that the CIT(A) failed to consider the written submissions and list of documents filed in compliance with a notice under Section 250.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the assessee's appeal and confirming the addition of Rs. 57,68,142/- as unexplained expenditure under Section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without considering the assessee's written submissions and documentary evidence, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and audi alteram partem? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the CIT(A) grossly erred by dismissing the appeal and confirming the addition without adjudicating the matter properly. The assessee contended that extensive written submissions (22 pages) along with a series of evidences (including an affidavit) and case laws (over 100 pages) were e-filed but not considered. The assessee also pointed out procedural irregularities, including an incorrect email address being used for notices and insufficient time being given, suggesting a pre-fixed notion. The assessee prayed for the matter to be restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Revenue's Contention: The Department's Senior Departmental Representative (Sr. DR) supported the orders of the lower authorities but did not have serious objections to the matter being restored back to the CIT(A) as prayed for by the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69C,Section 250,Section 147,Section 144B,Section 148A,Section 148,Section 115BBE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA (DB

Before: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH & SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH

For Appellant: Shri Naveen Gargh, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR
Hearing: 06.08.2026Pronounced: 06.08.2026

PER : BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 11.03.2026 passed in appeal No. NFAC/2018-19/10357710 by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (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. 2019-20, wherein ld. CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s appeal.

ITA No.449/Agr/

2.

Brief facts of the case: The AO noted that during the year, the assessee had made bogus purchases from M/s Aniket Trading (Prop. Smt. Asha Kumar Shah) amounting to Rs. 57,68,142/-. The AO initiated proceeding u/s

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 69C

All 8,217 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →