KUNWAR SINGH,UNNAO vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(4), UNNAO
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal on medical grounds. Recognizing that both the assessment order and the CIT(A)'s appellate order were passed ex-parte without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment with specific directions to provide the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard regarding the disputed additions.
What were the facts?
The assessee's assessment for AY 2017-18 was completed ex-parte by the AO under section 144, resulting in additions under sections 69A read with 115BBE and as business income. The subsequent appeal filed by the assessee before the CIT(A) was also dismissed ex-parte.
What were the issues?
Condonation of delay in filing appeal; validity of ex-parte assessment and appellate orders passed without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard; and propriety of additions made under sections 69A and 115BBE.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW BENCH ‘SMC’, LUCKNOW
Before: SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA
2017-18 against impugned appellate order dated 16/10/2023 (DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1057107048(1) of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)” for short].
(B) This appeal has been filed by the assessee, beyond time limit prescribed under section 253(3) of IT Act. The assessee has submitted application for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal on medical ground, supported by medical certificate and affidavit; pleading that the delay was unintentional and beyond the control of the assessee and has Assessment Year:2017-18 2 requested to admit the appeal for hearing. The learned Departmental Representative did not express any objection to assessee’s application for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. In view of the foregoing, and in specific facts and circumstances of the present appeal before us, the delay in filing of this appeal is condoned; and the appeal is admitted for hearing.
(C) The facts of the case, in brief, are that in this case assessment order dated 18/12/2019 was passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 144 of the I. T. Act whereby the assessee’s income was assessed at Rs.11,66,638/-. In the aforesaid assessment order, an addition of Rs.9,21,500/- was made u/s 69A read with section 115BBE of the I. T. Act and further addition of Rs.2,45,138/- was also made, as business income. The order passed by the Assessing Officer was an ex-parte order qua the assessee. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A). Vide impugned appellate order dated 16/10/2023, the assessee’s appeal was dismissed by the learned CIT(A). The order of learned CIT(A) was passed ex-parte qua the appellant assessee.
(B.1) Both sides were heard. Materials on record were perused. On perusal of records, it is seen that the assessment order as well as the impugned appellate order of the learned CIT(A), both were passed ex-parte qua the appellant assessee. Further, reasonable opportunity of being heard was not provided to the assessee. Representative of both sides, learned Counsel for the assessee as well as learned D.R. for Revenue, were in agreement that the issue in dispute regarding aforesaid additions may be restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to pass de novo assessment order in accordance with law on the disputed addition, after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. In view of the foregoing, the order of learned CIT(A) is set aside and restored Assessment Year:2017-18 3 back to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to pass de novo assessment order in accordance with law on the aforesaid disputed additions of Rs.9,21,500/- and Rs.2,45,138/-; after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
(C) In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
(Order pronounced in the open court on 20/01/2026)
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 →- Jharkhand Contractors Association Thro Its President- Pramod Kumar vs. Bharat Coking Coal LTD. Thro Its Chairman Cum Managing DirectorJharkhand · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Isc Processors Private Limited vs. Superintendent,Range-Iv, Burrabazar Div, CGST And Cx, Kolkata (N) Commissionerate And AnrCalcutta · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Raashi Constructions vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial TaxesKarnataka · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Bidasaria Fenster Solutions vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 13 Oct 2026
- Amit Agency vs. Commissioner, CGST And CxPatna · 13 Oct 2026