SURESH CHAND SINGHAL,GURGAON vs. ITO,WARD 52(2), NEW DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal observed that the NFAC dismissed the appeal for non-compliance with notices without adjudicating on the merits. Both the assessee's counsel and the Departmental Representative agreed to restore the appeal. Consequently, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)/NFAC for a fresh decision on merits after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) for AY 2017-18. The NFAC had confirmed an addition of Rs. 9,04,500/- made by the Assessing Officer for undisclosed income under Section 69A, allegedly from bank deposits. The assessee contended that NFAC dismissed the appeal without providing an adequate opportunity of being heard and without deciding the case on merits.
What were the issues?
Whether the NFAC erred in dismissing the assessee's appeal without providing adequate opportunity of being heard and without deciding the case on merits, thus confirming an addition under Section 69A.
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
PER CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD: JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 15.03.2023 for the assessment
2017-18. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, order passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre/(NFAC) is bad both in the eye of law and on facts.
2.(i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, NFAC has erred, both of facts and in law, in passing the order without giving assessee an appropriate and adequate opportunity of being heard in violation of the principle of natural justice.
(ii) That the reason for non appearance before the NFAC was beyond the control of the assessee.
3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, NFAC has erred, both of facts and in law, in passing the order without giving any findings on the merits of the case.
4.(i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, NFAC has erred, both of facts and in law, in confirming the addition of an amount of Rs.9,04,500/-, made by the Assessing Officer on account of deposits in the bank account of the assessee holding the same to be undisclosed income under Section 69A of the Act.
(ii). The addition has been made despite the fact that the assessee had deposited the same from undisclosed sources.”
At the outset, the learned counsel for the assessee submits that the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) without giving proper opportunity of being heard.
Learned counsel for the assessee further submits that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-compliance of the notices dated 25.02.2021 and 08.02.2023 and without deciding the grounds on merits. Learned counsel for the assessee further submits that the appeal may be restored to the file of the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax(Appeals) for deciding the grounds of appeal on merits.
4. On the other hand, learned Departmental Representative has no serious objection in restoring the appeal to the file of the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax(Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre for deciding the grounds on merits.
Heard rival submissions and perused the orders of the authorities below.
On hearing both the sides and perusing the order of learned Commissioner of Income-Tax(Appeals), this appeal is restored to the file of the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax(Appeals) to decide the appeal afresh on merits after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In the result, the appeal 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 →- Sukant Kumar vs. Union Of INDIA And 6 OthersAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S New Sana Brick Field vs. Union Of INDIA And 4 OthersAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Vinay Singh vs. Union Of INDIAAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Aaradhyam Infrabuilders PVT LTD vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
