MANOJ KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 44 (6) NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

ITA 164/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 March 20265 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that it was an admitted fact that despite opportunities granted by the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee did not file submissions, leading to an ex-parte dismissal of the appeal by the Ld. CIT(A). The Tribunal found that the appeal should have been decided on merits as per Section 250 of the Act. Since the appeal was decided ex-parte without giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard, the Tribunal, considering the totality of facts and in the interest of justice, restored the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) was directed to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its claim and decide the issue on facts and law. The assessee was also directed to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) and cooperate. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Manoj Kumar, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) challenging the order of the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-31, New Delhi, dated 11-12-2025. This order pertained to Assessment Year 2017-18 and arose from an assessment under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, completed by the Income-Tax Officer Ward-44(6)(1), New Delhi. The Assessing Officer had assessed the total income at Rs.69,01,140/- after making an addition of Rs.54,03,000/- under section 68. The Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeal. The assessee's original return of income declared a total income of Rs.14,98,140/-.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) under section 250 of the Act is bad in law and on facts. The assessee contended that the Ld. CIT(A) passed the order without hearing the assessee and without deciding the appeal on merits, violating principles of natural justice. The revenue argued that departmental authorities passed reasoned orders and the assessee did not participate in proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A), justifying the dismissal. 2. Whether the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) is illegal, bad in law, and without jurisdiction. The assessee argued this point. The revenue contended that departmental authorities passed reasoned orders. 3. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.69,01,140/- considering cash deposit as unexplained credit. The assessee argued this. The revenue contended that the AO dealt with the arguments and the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the AO's findings. 4. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition without deciding the issue on merits. The assessee argued this. The revenue contended that the AO dealt with the arguments and the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the AO's findings. 5. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in passing the order without giving proper opportunity to be heard and without considering the assessee's reply. The assessee argued this. The revenue contended that the assessee did not participate in proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 68,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “G”, DELHI

Before: SH. S. RIFAUR RAHMAN

For Appellant: CA Sh. Harish Choudhary CA
Hearing: 16/03/2026Pronounced: 16/03/2026

PER SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-31 New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “Ld.CIT(A))”] vide order dated 11-12- 2025 pertaining to A.Y. 2017-18 arising out the assessment u/s.143(3) of the Income-tax Act,

order dated 27-12-2019 1961, (in short ‘the Act’.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds in appeal as under:

1.

0n the facts and circumstances of the case and provisions of law, the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) under section 250 of the Act is bad both in the eyes of law and on facts.

2.

That on the facts and circumstances of the case and the

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 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →