MANISH GUPTA,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD 2(4), GURGAON
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that principles of natural justice require the assessee to be given an opportunity to furnish documentary evidence. The impugned ex-parte order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee's assessment was reopened based on information regarding an investment in immovable property. The Assessing Officer accepted the source of investment except for Rs. 15,00,000/-, which was treated as unexplained money. The CIT(A) confirmed this addition in an ex-parte order.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition without providing the assessee an opportunity to present evidence, violating principles of natural justice.
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”, DELHI
(A.Y.2012-13) Manish Gupta, H-101, Surya Vihar Complex, Near Kapashera Border, Gurgaon, Haryana 122016 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant PAN: AMPPG-7521-B बिाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(4), ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent Gurgaon, Haryana 122016 अपीलार्थी द्वारा/Appellant by : Shri Chandresh Gupta & Ms. Manisha Lahoti Chartered Accountants प्रधििािीद्वारा/Respondent by : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR सुिवाई की निथर्थ/ Date of hearing : 16/12/2025 घोषणा की निथर्थ/ Date of pronouncement : 16/12/2025 आदेश/ORDER
PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM:
This appeal by the assessee is directed against an ex-parte order of Joint/Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Agra [in short ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 12.09.2025, for the Assessment Year 2012-13.
Shri Chandresh Gupta, appearing on behalf of the assessee submits that the assessment was reopened on the basis of information received from the Investigation Wing alleging investment in immovable property amounting to Rs. 80,86,553/-. In reassessment proceedings, the assessee explained source of investment. The AO accepted source of entire investments except Rs.15,00,000/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) held that an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- stated to be sale proceeds of jewellery, routed through the bank account of the assessee’s sister, remained unexplained. The Assessing Officer treated the said amount as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and added the same to the total income of the assessee. The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). The assessee could not make submissions before the CIT(A) due to Bonafide omission. The CIT(A) in an ex-parte order confirmed the addition made by the AO. The assessee has good case on merits. The assessee can furnish documentary evidence to substantiate sale of jewellery.
Shri Manoj Kumar, representing the department vehemently supported the orders of the authorities below.
Both sides heard. The addition of Rs.15,00,000/- has been sustained by the CIT(A) in ex-parte proceedings primarily on account of lack of documentary evidence regarding sale of jewellery and that the same amount has been taxed in the hands of assessee’s sister. Considering entire facts of the case, I am of the view that to hold the principles of natural justice, the assessee should be provided an opportunity to furnishing relevant documentary evidences to substantiate sale of jewellery and the fact that the said amount has been taxed in he hands of assessee’s sister (Ms. Tanu Gupta). Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is restored to the Assessing Officer for denovo adjudication, in accordance with law. The AO shall provide adequate opportunity to the assessee to make submissions and furnish documentary evidences, if any. The assessee shall respond to the notice(s) served by the AO, without fail.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on Tuesday the 16th day of December, 2025.
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. Bangi Mines And Minerals vs. The State Of TelanganaTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Arka Business Solutions vs. Principal Commissioner Of CustomsTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Mehra Mac Industries Private Limited vs. The Deputy State Tax OfficerTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- Santosh Das And Anr. vs. Union Of INDIACalcutta · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S Rama Krishna Industries vs. State Of Hp And OthersHimachal Pradesh · 30 Oct 2026