SEJAL VORA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal, in the interest of justice and with no objection from the Ld. DR, remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to pass a fresh order after granting the assessee an opportunity of being heard.
What were the facts?
The assessee appealed against an addition of Rs. 10,64,550/- treated as unexplained money under section 69A of the Income Tax Act for AY 2013-14. The assessment was framed ex-parte under sections 147/144, and the CIT(A) confirmed the addition, both citing no response from the assessee, who claimed not to have received notices due to an incorrect email ID.
What were the issues?
Whether the addition under section 69A was justified without basis or evidence, and if the ex-parte assessment and appeal orders were valid given the assessee's claim of not receiving notices.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH, ‘SMC’: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA
ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, AM,
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, dated 15.12.2023 pertaining to Assessment Year 2013-14.
The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-
“1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by CIT(A), is contrary to the facts and bad in law.
2. That on facts and circumstances of the case the CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs.10,64,550/- by treating the same as unexplained money u/s 69A without any basis or evidence. 2.1 That the CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the addition despite the fact that in the assessment order no details have been mentioned regarding the addition of Rs10,64,550/- u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act. The AO was not mentioned any details of this amount. Further the AO was not mentioned the counter party with whom the impugned transaction if any of Rs 10,64,550/- has been entered into nor any details of nature of transaction has been mentioned in the assessment order 2.2 That the CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the addition despite the fact that in the assessment order additions have been made without explaining the background, based on which impugned addition of Rs 10,64,550/- has been made.
3. That on facts and circumstances of the case the CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs.10,64,550/- ignoring the fact that the reopening of assessment was bad in law since the reasons recorded by the assessing officer were never provided to the appellant during the assessment proceedings.
4. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law the order passed by the CIT(A) is an ex-parte order and no opportunity was given and is in violation of the rule of nature justice.”
In this case, the assessment was framed u/s 147/144 of the Act. The Assessing Officer made addition of unexplained money amounting to Rs.10,64,500/-. In the order, the Assessing Officer noted that there was no response from the assessee despite notices.
Upon assessee’s appeal, the ld. CIT(A) also noted that there was no response from the assessee and he confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer.
Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us.
We have heard both the parties and perused the records. The ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed that e-mail Id was not correct and hence the assessee could not receive the notices. He also prayed that an opportunity may be granted before the Assessing Officer to the assessee to canvass the issue properly.
Ld. DR does not have any objection to this proposition.
Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we remit the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer shall pass the order afresh after giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 3rd May, 2024.
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 Sita Enterprises vs. Office Of The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Sri Tatiparthy Venkata Swamy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 25 Oct 2026
- Piyush Shantilal Veera vs. State Of U.P.Allahabad · 23 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Pooja Shri Traders vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1Madras · 23 Oct 2026
