ARCHIT JAIN,DELHI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-7, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2272/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 December 2025AY 2022-234 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order due to the assessee's non-appearance and lack of documentary evidence. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing a fair opportunity of hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed a return of income, and a search operation was conducted. The Assessing Officer made additions of Rs. 30,00,000/- and Rs. 14,14,779/-. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without adjudicating the grounds of appeal on merit and confirming additions made by the AO.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 132,Section 143(3),Section 250,Section 69A,Section 115BBE,Section 153D

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘A’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI M BALAGANESH & SHRI VIMAL KUMAR

For Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Hearing: 09.12.2025Pronounced: 23.12.2025

PER VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

The appeal filed by the assessee is against order dated 19.03.2025 of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(A)") under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as “the Act”) arising out of assessment order dated 31.03.2024 passed by Learned Assessing Officer/Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-7, New Delhi ( (hereinafter referred to as " Ld. Assessing Officer”) under Section 143(3) of the Act for assessment year 2022-23.

2. Brief facts of case are that assessee filed return of income tax on 25.07.2022 declaring income of Rs.11,79,070/-. A search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Act was conducted on 12.12.2022 on assessee and others. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny. Statutory notice under Section 143(2) of the Act dated 29.06.2023 and notices under Section 142(1) of the Act along with detailed questionnaire were issued on 30.10.2023 and 22.02.2024. Show-cause-notice dated 14.03.2024 was also issued. Assessee submitted reply along with documents. On completion of proceedings, Ld. AO vide order dated 31.03.2024 made additions of Rs.30,00,000/- and Rs.14,14,779/-.

3.

Against order dated 31.03.2024, the appellant/assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A) which was dismissed vide order dated 19.03.2025.

4.

Being aggrieved, appellant/assessee preferred present appeal with following grounds of appeal. “1.On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment order passed by the assessing officer is bad-in-law and CIT(A) erred in not holding so.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the assessing officer of Rs. 30,00,000/- on account of alleged unexplained money u/s 69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Act and, therefore, the addition made by the AO is liable to be deleted

3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the assessing officer of Rs. 14,14,779/- on account of alleged unexplained money 69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Actand, therefore, the addition made by the AO is liable to be deleted.

4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the assessing officer of Rs. 10,000/- on account of alleged unexplained money u/s 69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Actand, therefore, the addition made by the AO is liable to be deleted 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment order passed by the assessing officer is contrary to the provisions of section 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and CIT(A) erred in not holding so.

6.

On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in passing ex-parte order and not without adjudicating the grounds of appeal

on merit.”

5. At the time of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the appellant/assessee.

6. Learned authorized Representative for the Revenue submitted that during appellate proceedings, appellant did not produce any documents in support of his claim.

7. From examination of record in light of aforesaid contentions, it is crystal clear that Ld. CIT(A) vide ex parte order dated 19.03.2025 observed that appellant did not provide any documentary evidence in support of grounds of appeal. In view of above material facts in the interest of substantial justice, impugned Order of Ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh decision in accordance with law after affording fair opportunity of hearing to the appellant/assessee.

More judgments on Section 132

All 14,598 judgments and leading authorities on Section 132 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →