MUKUL KUMAR YADAV,GURGAON vs. CIT APPEALS, NFAC
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had made requests for adjournment before the CIT(A) which were not allowed. Therefore, to provide justice, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, ensuring the assessee is given a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order which dismissed the appeal due to non-compliance. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without granting the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard, despite genuine requests for adjournments.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without granting a proper opportunity to be heard and whether additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) were justified.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, HON’BLE VICE- & SMT. RENU JAUHRI, HON’BLE
ORDER PER RENU JAUHRI :
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/ National Faceless Appeal Centre, New Delhi [for short, Ld. CIT (A)/NFAC], u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (for short, the “Act”), order dated 16.01.2025 in the Appeal No. CIT(A), Gurgaon- 1/11697/2019-20.
2. The assessee has raised following grounds of Appeal: “1. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] erred in dismissing the appeal without granting the 1 | P a g e
Kumar Yadav vs CIT(A) appellant a proper and fair opportunity of being heard, as mandated under Section 250(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Despite multiple requests for adjournments due to genuine reasons, the CIT(A) proceeded to uphold the additions without adequately considering the submissions or providing sufficient time for the appellant to furnish necessary evidence.
The Assessing Officer (AO) and the CIT(A) erred in treating the loans amounting to Rs. 1,20,90,000/- as unexplained under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, despite the appellant providing confirmations, bank statements, and other relevant documents to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions.
The AO incorrectly added Rs. 6,25,000/- received as a nonrefundable security deposit from M/s Tulip Infratech Pvt. Ltd. under “Income from Other Sources” (Section 56 of the Income Tax Act, 1961). The said amount is capital in nature, being a security deposit related to a collaboration agreement, and does not fall within the ambit of taxable income.
4. Both the AO and the CIT(A) failed to consider the detailed explanations, confirmations, and supporting evidence furnished by the appellant, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.
5. The AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without establishing deliberate concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by the appellant;”
3. Brief facts are that the assessee filed his return for A.Y. 2012-13 on 31.03.2014 declaring an income of Rs. 4,31,200/- which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. In view of the information available with the Ld. AO regarding deposits in assessee’s bank account, a notice u/s 148 was issued to the assessee on 29.03.2019. 3.1 Assessment was completed after making an addition of Rs. 1,20,90,000/- on account of unexplained loans and another addition of Rs. 6,25,000/- of sum 2 | P a g e 6275_DEL_2025_Mukul Kumar Yadav vs CIT(A) received from M/s Tulip Infratech Pvt. Ltd. on account of collaboration agreement. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). As no compliance was made to the multiple notices issued during the appellate proceedings, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal vide order dated 16.01.2025. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal.
None has appeared on behalf of the assessee before us. We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the material available on record. We note that the assessee had made two requests for adjournment before Ld. CIT(A) which were not allowed. In the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter to Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after giving the assessee reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to be vigilant and make requisite compliance before Ld. CIT(A) to enable him to decide the appeal on merits.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 21 -01-2026.
More judgments on Section 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Tvl. Jeyarani Shopping Centre vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer -1/The Deputy Commercial Tax OfficerMadras · 14 Oct 2026
- Rohan Tanna vs. Directorate General Of Goods And Services Tax IntelligenceChhattisgarh · 14 Oct 2026
- Dipak Saikia vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- Saraswati Phukan vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- Sanjay Maheshwari vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 14 Oct 2026
