CHADHA MOTORS,KURUKSHETRA vs. ITO, KURUKSHETRA
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that both the AO and CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders without considering the merits or providing a proper hearing. Upholding natural justice, the Tribunal remanded the case to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, ensuring the assessee receives a due opportunity to be heard.
What were the facts?
The assessee failed to file an Income Tax Return for AY 2017-18. Information on cash deposits totaling Rs. 78,33,600 led to reassessment proceedings, culminating in ex-parte assessment and appeal orders by the AO and CIT(A) respectively, with an addition under Section 69A.
What were the issues?
Whether the ex-parte orders passed by the CIT(A) and AO, confirming the addition under Section 69A for unexplained cash deposits, violated natural justice due to lack of proper hearing, warranting a remand for fresh adjudication on merits.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 250,Section 69A,Section 139(1),Section 142(1),Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CHANDIGARH BENCH, ‘A’, CHANDIGARH
Before: SHRI LALIET KUMAR & SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY
per para 16 of the assessment order). Similarly, the Ld. CIT(A) also has passed an ex-parte order because of the non-compliance of the assessee. The Ld. counsel argued that as the assessee did not receive notice issued by the NFAC, Delhi, therefore, it could not be complied with. However, despite the fact that there was no compliance on the part of the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) was required to pass a speaking order on merits on the basis of material available on record but that he has not been done.
That the Ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below.
We find that the order passed by the Assessing Officer is an ex-parte order passed u/s 144 and ld. CIT(A) has also passed an ex-parte order without bringing on record anything on merits. Therefore, keeping in view the element natural justice, we are of the considered view that the matter should be remanded back to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Accordingly, the case is remanded back to the CIT(A) for adjudication afresh on merit, in accordance with law, on affording due and adequate opportunity of 1145-Chd-2024 Chadha Motors, Kurukshetra 5 hearing to the Assessee. The Assessee, no doubt, shall cooperate in the fresh proceedings before the CIT(A). All pleas available under the law shall remain so available to the assessee. Ordered accordingly. The appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 08.07.2025.
More judgments on Section 69A
- Vishal Kumar Patel(HUF), Raipur vs DCIT, Circle-1(1), RaipurITA 595/RPR/2026[2017-18]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Ashok Singh, Jaipur vs ACIT, Circle-2 Jaipur, JaipurITA 1540/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Neepaben Sunnybhai Motwani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, RajkotITA 875/RJT/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Sikka Motors PVT LTD vs. Union Of INDIA & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Shri Yaras Suresh Babu Prabhu Kumar vs. The Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026
- Santa Singh vs. SuperintendentUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Azaad Builders vs. Assistant Commissioner SGSTUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Shadab Malik vs. State Of U.P. And 2 OthersAllahabad · 26 Oct 2026
