RAKESH KUMAR RATHI,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 34(4), NEW DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not given sufficient opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, the issues were set aside to the CIT(A) to decide afresh after providing adequate opportunity.
What were the facts?
The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s order confirming an addition of Rs. 45,38,354/- on account of undisclosed income. The assessee argued that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without providing sufficient opportunity.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred by passing an ex-parte order without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee. Whether the addition made on account of undisclosed income was justified.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘SMC’ BENCH, NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU
This appeal is filed by the assessee is against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals-12], New Delhi dated 05.12.2018 pertaining to assessment year 2010-11 on the following grounds:-
1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and the provision of law, the order passed by Commissioner of Income Tax in support of confirming the addition made through the order of the Income Tax Officer under section 143(3) of the Act for the assessment year 2010-11 is illegal and bad in law and confirming the additions therein are unjust, unlawful and arbitrary and thus illegal.
2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ad in law in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred by confirming the addition made by the AO wherein addition of Rs. 45,38,354/- on account of undisclosed income as same is shown under section 44AF of the Income Tax Act.
3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred by confirming the addition made by the AO and denying to give the advantage of presumptive taxation of calling the detailed explanation on books of accounts which is contrary to the law.
4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred by confirming the addition made by the AO wherein the assessment order, Section under which assessment is made not mentioned.
5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred by confirming the addition made by the AO wherein that the various observation and findings of the AO in the impugned assessment order is denied being vitiated in law and contrary of the facts.
6. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred by making addition without any documentary evidences which is not appropriate in eye of law and such addition is uncalled for unjustified and hence to be deleted.
7. That the appellant craves the right to add, alter, append delete any of all ground of appeal.
2. At the time of hearing Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that Ld. CIT(A) has passed the exparte impugned order without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee. He requested that the issues in dispute may be set aside to the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the same afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
3. On the contrary, Ld. DR relied upon the impugned order. 4. I have heard both the parties and perused the orders of the authorities below. I am of the view that Ld. CIT(A) has not given sufficient opportunity to the assessee, therefore, in the interest of justice I am setting aside the issues in dispute to the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the same afresh after giving adequate opportunity of being herd to the assessee. 4.1 Keeping in view of the non-cooperation of the assessee, I am directing the assessee through his counsel to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) on 23.04.2020 at 10.00 am for hearing. There is no need to issue the notice by the Ld. CIT(A) to the assessee, since this order has already been pronounced in the open court. 5. In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. The order pronounced on 19.02.2020. Sd/-
More judgments on Section 44AF
- Kamlesh Puranmal Agrawal, Surat vs ITO, Ward 1(2)(1), SuratITA 1152/SRT/2025[2009-10]Status: Disposed31 Aug 2026AY 2009-10
- Vinodkumar Ramubhai Patel, Valsad vs Income Tax Oficer, Ward-4, NavsariITA 332/SRT/2026[2010-11]Status: Disposed2 Jun 2026AY 2010-11
- Tej Pal Singh, Haridwar vs ITO, RoorkeeITA 915/DDN/2015[2010-11]Status: Disposed12 Jan 2026AY 2010-11
- Vikram Babulal Shah, Mumbai vs ITO, Assessment Unit It Department, MumbaiITA 917/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: Disposed28 Nov 2025AY 2012-13
- Vipulbhai Vitthalbhai Kakadia, Surat vs ITO, Ward 3(1)(5), SuratITA 543/SRT/2025[2010-11]Status: Disposed24 Nov 2025AY 2010-11
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Modern Engineers And Contractors vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- K Madhusudan Reddy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Sandeep Ranjan Rout vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Gagan Bihari Rout@Gagan Rout vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Biswanath Rana vs. The Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 28 Oct 2026