VISHAL CHITKARA ,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, DELHI
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 found that the CIT(A)'s order was not in accordance with Section 250(6) of the Act. The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) ought to have given sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee and adjudicated all grounds raised in the appeal.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal was against an ex-parte order of the CIT(A) which confirmed an addition made by the Assessing Officer. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) had not provided a proper opportunity of being heard.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) provided a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee before passing an ex-parte order.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘E’ BENCH,
Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA
PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:-
This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the ld.
CIT(A)-24, New Delhi dated 29.03.2025 pertaining to A.Y. 2018-19.
None was present from the side of the assessee. We decided to proceed ahead with the assistance of the ld DR and the materials on record.
1. parte order confirming the addition of Rs. 1,29,06,920/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the objection of the assessee is that the CIT(A) has done so without providing proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The ld. DR fairly conceded that the order of the ld. CIT(A) may be set aside for fresh adjudication.
We have heard the submissions and have perused the relevant material on record. We find that the order of the CIT(A) is not in accordance with the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. We are therefore, of the considered view that the CIT(A) ought to have given sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee and adjudicate all the grounds raised in the appeal. Considering the facts of the case, and in the interest of justice and fair play, the appeal is restored to the file of the ld.
CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on all the issues raised, as per the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act.
The ld. CIT(A) is directed to decide the issues afresh after affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to provide necessary information/documents as required by the authorities.
Page 2 of 4 [A.Y. 2018-19] Vishal Chitkara Vs. Dy. CIT 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee in is allowed for statistical purposes. The order is pronounced in the open court on 05.12.2025.
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 Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- 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
- Vandemataram Projects Private Limited vs. Raipur Development AuthorityChhattisgarh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Surya Prakash Aroma vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 27 Oct 2026
