SANDEEP NANDAL,HARYANA vs. ITO, WARD-34(5), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4825/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 November 2025AY 2019-20Bench: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee requested a remand back to the CIT(A) due to unavoidable reasons for not responding to notices. To provide natural justice, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the CIT(A) to pass an order on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) confirming additions made by the Assessing Officer for Assessment Year 2019-20. The CIT(A) had noted that the assessee did not respond to notices and failed to file submissions.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming additions without deciding on merits, and whether the matter should be remanded for natural justice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69C,Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA & SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTNAT MEMBER

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Kumar, CA
For Respondent: Shri Om Praskash Sr. DR
Hearing: 19.11.2025Pronounced: 19.11.2025

Date of Hearing 19.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement 19.11.2025 ORDER PER KRINWANT SAHAY, AM,

Appeal in this case has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 10.06.2025 of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, New Delhi, for Assessment Year 2019-20.

2.

The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-

1.

On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned CIT (A) is bad, both in the eye of law and on the facts.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming addition of Rs.86,58,058/- on account of unexplained import purchase u/s 69C of the Income Tax Act.

3.

On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming addition of Rs. 19,90,500/- on account of unexplained cash deposit u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of unexplained rent paid u/s 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) has erred in law in confirming addition without deciding the appeal on merits. 3. The ld. CIT(A) in his appellate order, observed that the seven opportunities were given to the assessee but the assessee did not respond to the notices issued and no written submission was filed nor anybody appeared on behalf of the assessee. The ld. Counsel for the assessee requested that since unavoidable reasons, the assessee could not respond to the notices issued by the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, the matter should be remanded back to the file of the ld. CIT(A).

4.

Per Contra, ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below.

5.

We have considered the findings given by Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A). We have considered the arguments of the ld. Counsel for the assessee as well as that of ld. DR. We feel that the in order to give the natural justice to the assessee, the matter should be decided on merit.

Accordingly, we are inclined to remand this issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to pass the order on merit in accordance with law after giving opportunity to the assessee. Accordingly, this appeal is remanded back to the file of the ld. CIT(A)

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 19th November, 2025.

More judgments on Section 69C

All 8,217 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →