USHA JAJOO,GWALIOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), GWALIOR, GWALIOR

ITA 684/AGR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Agra15 October 2026AY 2020-213 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee had been provided with several opportunities for hearing during the first appellate proceedings but failed to respond. Consequently, the CIT(A) was compelled to pass an ex-parte order. While the Tribunal did not appreciate the assessee's non-cooperative conduct, it deemed it just and appropriate, in the interest of justice, 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 expeditious disposal. The CIT(A) was also directed to ensure observance of the principles of natural justice. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Usha Jajoo, is in appeal against an order dated 24.08.2026 passed by the CIT(A)/NFAC. This order confirmed an addition of Rs. 18,96,786/- made under Section 69 read with Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as unexplained cash investment. The addition was originally made in an assessment order dated 28.03.2025 passed under Section 147 of the Act for Assessment Year 2020-21. The assessee's appeal to the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte. The assessee's primary grievance before the ITAT is that the CIT(A) erred in passing the order ex-parte without providing an adequate opportunity of hearing.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the assessment order ex-parte, without affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee, as per Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the CIT(A) passed the impugned order ex-parte, thereby denying them a proper opportunity to present their case. The assessee seeks a fresh adjudication on merits. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through the Senior Departmental Representative, did not explicitly present arguments on the merits of the addition. However, the judgment notes that several hearing opportunities were provided to the assessee during the first appellate proceedings, which the assessee did not comply with, compelling the CIT(A) to pass an ex-parte order. The revenue implicitly supported the CIT(A)'s action due to the assessee's non-compliance.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69,Section 115BBE,Section 250,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA (SMC

Before: SUNIL KUMAR SINGHBRAJESH KUMAR SINGH

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Vijaywargiya, CA
For Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr (DR)
Hearing: 15.10.2026Pronounced: 15.10.2026

PER:SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, J.M.

This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 24.08.2026 passed in appeal No NFAC/2019-20/10502368 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. 18,96,786/- made u/s 69 r.w.s 115BBE of the Act as unexplained cash investment, vide assessment order dated 28.03.2025 passed u/s 147 of the Act.

2.

Appellant assessee has preferred this second appeal on the ground that ld CIT(A) has erred in confirming the assessment order ex-

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 69

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

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →