NINA LUTHRA,NOIDA vs. ITO, WARD- 1(2), NOIDA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to comply with Section 250(6) of the IT Act by not mentioning points for determination and reasons for decision. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was not sustainable in law.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 1 lakh on account of unexplained investment. The CIT(A) initially decided the appeal but later dismissed it after the assessee's counsel left without arguing. The assessee contended that they were not given sufficient opportunity to be heard and that the order was not speaking.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) provided a sufficient opportunity of being heard and passed a speaking order as required by law.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES “SMC” : DELHI
Before: SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI
This appeal by assessee has been directed against the Order of the Ld. CIT(A)-1, Noida, Dated 01.12.2017, for the A.Y. 2011-2012.
In this case, the A.O. made addition of Rs.1 lakh on account of unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act.
2 ITA.No.245/Del./2018 Smt. Nina Luthra, Noida. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) noted that originally the appeal was decided vide order dated 27.01.2016. However, assessee moved an application for recalling of the said order stating that grievance of the assessee were not completely adjudicated and the grounds raised by the assessee remain unadjudicated. The Ld. CIT(A) fixed the matter for hearing again and on the request of the assessee, it was adjourned to 27.11.2017, but, on that date, there were no response from the side of the assessee. The matter was again listed for 01.12.2017 but the Counsel for the assessee though appeared before him but choose to leave his Office without arguing the case and without seeking any adjournment. The Ld. CIT(A), accordingly, dismissed the appeal of assessee.
4. After considering the rival submissions, I am of the view that the matter requires reconsideration at the level of the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee in the grounds of appeal submitted that no sufficient opportunity of being heard have been given by the Ld. CIT(A) and that no speaking order have been passed.
3 ITA.No.245/Del./2018 Smt. Nina Luthra, Noida. According to Section 250(6) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the Ld. CIT(A) is required to mention point for determination and reasons for decision in his appellate order. However, such provision have not been complied with in this case. Thus, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) cannot be sustained in law. I, accordingly, set aside the impugned order of Ld. CIT(A)-1, Noida and restore the appeal of assessee to his file with a direction to re-decide the matter/case of the assessee in accordance with law, by mentioning point for determination and reasons for decision in his appellate order. The Ld. CIT(A) shall give reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court.
More judgments on Section 69
- Azure Knowledge Corporation Private… vs The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), AhmedabadITA 2013/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Naresh Chandra Khattar, Agra vs ITO Ward-1(1)(2), AgraITA 475/AGR/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Ranchhodbhai Kurjibhai Kakadiya, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 553/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Gorantla Rahul Kumar, Visakhapatnam vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 670/VIZ/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Gorantla Rahul Kumar, Visakhapatnam vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 669/VIZ/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Govindjee Dairy Milk Private Limited vs. Central Goods And Services TaxRajasthan · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Asian Aura vs. Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026