AMIT JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 60(6), NEW DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was passed ex-parte and the grounds raised were not decided by a speaking order. To uphold the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte without adequate opportunity of being heard. The assessee contended that the CIT(A)'s order violated principles of natural justice and was non-speaking.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without affording a proper opportunity of hearing and passing a non-speaking order.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI “SMC” BENCH: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA
ORDER
PER KUL BHARAT, JM :
The present appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2017-18 is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”), Delhi dated 18.12.2022. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- I. “The assessment order passed in the present case is based on personal whims and fancies without ascertaining the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence liable to be quashed.
2. That the Ld. CIT(A) bas grossly erred in Jaw and on facts in passing the order in utter disregard of the statutory provisions contained u/s 250(6) of the Act by dismissing the appeal of the appellant ex-parte violating the principles of natural justice.
3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has overlooked the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act, as the order passed by him is non-speaking and without affording any proper opportunity of being heard to the appellant.
4. That the Ld. CIT(A) has ignored various judicial rulings, wherein it was held that section 250(6) makes it obligatory for the CIT(A) to pass a speaking order deciding the points raised in appeal, stating his reasons for the decision as such.
5. That the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in disposing off the appeal ex-parte without allowing sufficient and real opportunity to the appellant to represent the case and hence, the impugned order passed required to be set-aside/cancelled.
6. That on the basis of facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the addition made by Ld. AO on account of cash deposit in bank account amounting to Rs.15,24.000/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act. 1961.
7. That on the basis of facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the addition made by Ld. AO amounting to Rs. 21,12,376/- on account of estimated profit @ 8% of the total credits in bank account through banking channel amounting to Rs.2,64,04,732/- by assuming the total credits as turnover of business u/s 44AD of the Income Tax Act. 1961.
That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify, rescind, supplement or alter any of the grounds of appeal
before the appeal is finally adjudicated upon.”
2. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the impugned order has been passed ex-parte to the assessee without providing adequate opportunity of being heard. He submitted that the impugned order suffers violation of principle of nature justice. He therefore, submitted that impugned order may be set aside and the appeal be restored to the file of Ld.CIT(A) to decide it afresh.
On the other hand, Ld. Sr. DR opposed these submissions and supported the orders of the authorities below. He submitted that the assessee has been thoroughly negligent before the Assessing Authority and also there was no representation on behalf of the assessee despite various opportunities have been granted.
In re-joinder, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee would appear suo-moto before lower authorities, if so directed and cooperate in the proceedings.
We have heard Ld. Authorized Representatives of the parties and perused the material available on record. We find that before the AO, there was no representation on behalf of the assessee. Even before Ld.CIT(A), there was no compliance by the assessee. Considering the fact that the impugned order is passed ex-parte to the assessee and the grounds raised before Ld. CIT(A) have not been decided by way of a speaking order. Therefore, considering the totality of the facts and to sub-serve the interest of principle of natural justice, we hereby, set aside the appeal and restore to the file of Ld.CIT(A) to decide it afresh after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to both the parties. The assessee would not seek any adjournment without any reasonable cause and would cooperate in the proceedings before Ld.CIT(A). Hence, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
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 →- Jai Ram Gupta vs. The State Of Madhya PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026
- Maa Baglamukhi Construction Thr Propriter Aryan Dhingra vs. The State Of Madhya PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 22 Oct 2026
- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
