RAJ PAL SINGH,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-43(5), NEW DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal observed that the assessee was not given proper opportunity of being heard by the lower authorities, violating natural justice. Consequently, the assessment order was set aside, and the case was remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication, ensuring the assessee receives a fair chance to present their case and evidence regarding cash deposits.
What were the facts?
The assessee's assessment order for AY 2017-18 was passed ex-parte under Section 144, computing a higher income of Rs. 31,12,898/- and ignoring the returned income of Rs. 4,77,313/-. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the subsequent appeal, upholding the AO's action and applying Section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE, also ex-parte, without providing the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.
What were the issues?
Whether the lower authorities erred in passing ex-parte orders and dismissing the appeal without providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, and whether the application of Section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE was justified.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI “SMC” BENCH: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT & Dr.B.R.R.KUMAR
ORDER
PER KUL BHARAT, JM :
The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by Ld.CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”), Delhi dated 08.12.2023 for the assessment year 2017-18.
The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-
1. “That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case where the assessment order dated 21.12.2019 was passed ex-party u/s 144 of the Act and the appellate order dated 08.12.2023 DIN: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1058587196(1) was also passed by the Id CIT(A), NFAC, the appellant assessee seeks an opportunity to present his case.
2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id CIT(A), NFAC erred in dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee and further erred in sustaining the action of the Id AO who computed the total income at Rs. 31,12,898/- while completely ignoring the returned income of Rs 4,77,313/-.
3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id CIT(A), NFAC was wrong in holding that Id AO was correct in applying the provisions of Section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
4. That the appellant craves leave of this hon'ble court to add, amend, alter or withdraw any ground at the time of hearing.” 3. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity of being heard. Thereby, the lower authorities have violated the principle of natural justice. He submitted that the assessment order was passed ex-parte to the assessee and Ld.CIT(A) also did not provide adequate opportunity to the assessee. He submitted that in the interest of principle of natural justice and fair play, the matter may be restored to the file of Assessing Officer (“AO”).
On the other hand, Ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue opposed these submissions and supported the orders of the authorities below.
We have heard Ld. Authorized Representatives of the parties and perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that there was no representation of behalf of the assessee before the lower authorities. The assessment was passed ex-parte to the assessee and the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) was also decided in the absence of the assessee.
Having considered the material available on record, we are of the considered view that to sub-serve the interest of principle of natural justice, the assessee should be given an opportunity to represent his case before the lower Page | 2 authorities. Thus, the impugned assessment order is set aside and the assessment is restored to the file of AO for making assessment afresh after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and to file supporting evidences in respect of the source of cash deposits in his bank account. Grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly, allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
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 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 Surya Prakash Aroma vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 27 Oct 2026
- Mrs. Aqsa Begum vs. Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Govindjee Dairy Milk Private Limited vs. Central Goods And Services TaxRajasthan · 27 Oct 2026
