MANIDEEP MAGO ,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 27 , NEW 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) had not decided the appeal in accordance with Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act and that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee preferred an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) for AY 2018-19. The CIT(A) had confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard, violating principles of natural justice.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice by passing an ex-parte order without providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
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 CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA
PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:-
This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the ld.
CIT(A) -29, New Delhi dated 30.01.2024 pertaining to A.Y. 2018-19.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
1. 1. “1. That the impugned assessment order and impugned CIT(A) order are illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction and hence the orders are liable to be quashed.
2. That the addition of Rs 94,71,91,200/- made by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) is illegal, bad in law and liable to be deleted.
3. That Sec 68 has been wrongly and illegally invoked against the appellant assessee while making addition of Rs 94,71,91,200/-. The addition of Rs 94,71,91,200/- is illegal and should be deleted.
4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, this is a clear case of double addition and double taxation of the same credits twice and the same is illegal and not permissible under the Income Tax Act, 1961.
5. That the additions of both Rs 55,01,85,600/- and Rs 39,70,05,600/- (both part of Rs 94,71,91,200/-) is illegal, bad in law and are liable to be deleted.
6. That the various observations made in the assessment order and CIT(A) order are illegal, bad in law and against the facts on record and hence the impugned orders are liable to be quashed.
7. That the lower authorities have failed to appreciate the business model of the appellant and hence the additions that are made are illegal and liable to be deleted.
That the orders passed by the lower authorities are passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice and hence the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.
Page 2 of 5 [A.Y. 2018-19] Mandeep Mago Vs. ACIT 9. That the assessee was also prevented by reasonable and sufficient cause for not representing the matter before the CIT(A).
That the lower authorities have failed to examine the surrounding facts and circumstances and the orders passed by the lower authorities are illegal, bad in law and unjust.
That the explanations, submissions and evidences filed by the assessee before the lower authorities have not been considered judiciously and hence the orders of lower authorities are liable to be set aside.
That the appellant prays to add, amend, alter the grounds of appeal.”
3. At the very outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee vehemently stated that the ld. CIT(A) passed the ex-parte order without providing reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It is the say of the ld. counsel for the assessee that the principles of natural justice were violated by the ld. CIT(A).
4. Per contra, the ld. DR relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A).
We have heard the rival submissions and have perused the relevant materials on record. We find that the CIT(A) has confirmed the addition made by the assessing officer on the ground that the assessee did not respond to the notices issued by the CIT(A). We Page 3 of 5 accordance with the provisions of section 250(6). Further, we find that the assessee ought to have been given sufficient and adequate opportunity of being heard. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, we deem it fit to restore the appeal to the file of the ld. CIT(A).
The ld. CIT(A) is accordingly, directed to adjudicate 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/evidences as required by the ld. CIT(A). allowed for statistical purposes.
The order is pronounced in the open court on 20.11.2025.
More judgments on Section 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sutha vs. The State Tax Officer(Inspection-3)Madras · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sri Satya Sai Constructions vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- Anisha Busa vs. Sibar Institute Of Dental SciencesAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sri Satya Sai Constructions vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S. Sikka Motors PVT LTD vs. Union Of INDIA & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
