MUKHTAR AHMAD SHEIKH,BANDIPORA vs. ITO WARD 1, SRINAGAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 271/ASR/2025Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar05 February 2026AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member), SHRI UDAYAN DASGUPTA (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned a 400-day delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's medical issues. It remanded the case back to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with another opportunity to be heard and present his case, emphasizing principles of natural justice.

What were the facts?

The assessee deposited Rs. 29.91 lacs in cash during demonetization but failed to file a return or respond to notices. The AO completed the assessment ex-parte, adding the cash deposit under Section 69 and estimating business profit. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to non-compliance by the assessee.

What were the issues?

The key legal issues were the condonation of delay in filing the appeal due to medical reasons and whether the assessee was denied a proper opportunity of being heard during assessment and first appellate proceedings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69,Section 142(1),Section 144,Section 147,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DIVISION BENCH, ‘DB’ AMRITSAR

Before: SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL & SHRI UDAYAN DASGUPTA

Hearing: 03.02.2026Pronounced: 05.02.2026

O R D E R Per Udayan Dasgupta, J.M.:

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →