RAVINDER KUMAR ,DELHI vs. ITO, DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) order was passed ex-parte without providing the assessee a sufficient opportunity of being heard, thus violating principles of natural justice. The matter is remanded back to the file of the CIT(A) for a de-novo adjudication on merits, allowing proper opportunity to both parties.
What were the facts?
The assessment order dated 11/04/2019 under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, made an addition of Rs. 63,44,000/- under section 69A read with section 155BBE. The assessee's subsequent appeal to the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte on 14/09/2023, leading the assessee to file the current appeal before the Tribunal.
What were the issues?
Whether the ex-parte dismissal by CIT(A) without providing adequate opportunity violated natural justice, and the validity of additions made under Section 69A.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 143(3),Section 69A,Section 155BBE
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘F’: NEW DELHI
ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JM: This appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), New Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”, for short], dated 14/09/2023 for Assessment Year 2017-18. The Grounds taken by the Assessee are as under:
“1. Because the action for initiation, continuation and conclusion of assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) at an amount of Rs 67,14,380/- is being challenged on facts and law.
2. Because the action is being challenged on facts and law for passing ex-parte order overlooking that assessee has already filed submission on E-portal dt. 29.06.2023. Moreover, none hearing notice was issued before passing Exparte order dt. 14.09.2023. Thus, not providing reasonable opportunity of being heard.
Because the action is being challenged on facts and law for making addition of Rs. 61,50,000 by treating cash deposit in bank accounts as unrecorded cash u/s 69A whereas per assessee AO totally overlooked the submissions that cash deposit in bank are receipts on behalf of customers of Punjab National Bank for which assessee only gets commission as BCA.
Because the action is being challenged on facts and law for making addition of Rs. 61,50,000 by treating cash deposit in bank accounts as income from undisclosed sources u/s 69A whereas per assessee the said addition is made without making any enquiry from Punjab National Bank regarding the nature of cash deposit.
5. Because the action is being challenged on facts and law for making addition of Rs. 24,000 by treating cash deposit in bank accounts as unrecorded cash u/s 69A whereas per assessee the same are past savings. 6. Because the action is being challenged on facts and laws for making addition of Rs.1,70,000/- by treating cash deposit in bank accounts as unrecorded cash us 69A 7. For a decision in accordance with law in the interest of forwarding of the substantial justice with a prayer to allow addition deletion and modification in the grounds before the disposal of the same.”
The brief facts of the case are that the assessment order came to be passed on 11/04/2019 u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short) by making addition of Rs.63,44,000/- u/s 69A r.w.s 155BBE of the Act.
3. As against the assessment order dated 11/12/2019, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 14/09/2023, dismissed the appeal ex-parte. As against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 14/09/2023 the assessee preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal on the ground mentioned above.
4. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has not given sufficient opportunity, the assessee was unaware of the date of hearing as the Ld. CIT(A) has not given specific date of hearing and the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is in violation of principle of natural justice.
Per contra, the Ld. DR relied on the findings and conclusion of the Ld. CIT(A) but fairly submitted that an opportunity may be given to the assessee by restoring the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A).
Considering the fact that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) being ex- parte which came to be passed without hearing the Assessee and recording the submissions made by both the parties, we remand the issue involved in the present appeal to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication of the appeal on merit.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in open Court on 13th February, 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 →- Shining Steel Through Its Proprietor Kartik Gupta vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Redamancy World Through Its Proprietor Sanjay Kumar Goel vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Arj Exim INDIA vs. Additional Commissioner Of CGST, Appeals-Ii, New Delhi And OrsDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
- The State Of Bihar Through The Commissioner Of State Tax vs. Kaushlendra KumarPatna · 27 Oct 2026
- Ayush Sureshchandra Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
