RICHA NANGIA,NEW DELHI V. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 25, NEW DELHI

ITA 810/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves appeals by Richa Nangia against the orders of the CIT(A)-25, Delhi, for the Assessment Years 2014-15 and 2015-16. The appeals were consolidated due to the common grounds of appeal. The primary issues revolved around the ex-parte dismissal of the appeal by the CIT(A), the validity of the jurisdiction under section 153C of the Income Tax Act, and various additions made under sections 69A and 69C concerning unexplained cash and bank credits. The tribunal found procedural lapses in the handling of the appeals by the CIT(A), particularly the lack of proper notice and opportunity for the assessee to be heard, which are fundamental to the principles of natural justice.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 833604 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 12-02-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DAYAINDER SINGH SIDHU
• Assessee Lawyers: SATYJEET GOEL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Unexplained cash credit; Principle of natural justice; Opportunity of cross examination
• Section: 69; 69C

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘C’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.810 & 811/Del/2025 [Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2014-15] Richa Nangia, B-5, Ashoka Apartment, Plot No.36/2, Sector-9, Rohini, Delhi-110085 Vs. ACIT, Central, Circle-2.5, NCC DIT(S) Jhandewalan Ext. Delhi-110055 PAN :ALOPM6963D (Appellant ) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Satyjeet Goel, CA Respondent by Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 20.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement 03.02.2026 ORDER PER KRINWANT SAHAY, AM: Appeals in these cases have been filed against the orders both dated 20.12.2024 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-25, Delhi pertaining to Assessment Years 2014-15 and 2015-16, respectively. 2. Both the appeals of the assessee are revolving around common ground and hence for the purposes of adjudication were heard together and are being disposed by this common order. The facts in ITA No.811/Del/2025 are being considered for the purpose of this order and since the same are identical to ITA No.810/Del/2025, the decision Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA Nos.810 & 811/Del/2025 taken herein would apply mutatis mutandis in ITA No.810/Del/2025 also. 2. The grounds of appeal for AY 2014-15 are as under:- 1.1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without affording proper and reasonable opportunity of being heard. 1.2 That in absence of proper service of notice or grant of sufficient opportunity, the impugned order has been passed in contravention of principles of natural justice and same is invalid and void-ab-initio. 2.1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was not justified in upholding the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153C even though the notice u/s 153C was barred by limitation having been issued beyond the period of six years as per the first proviso to section 153C. 2.2. That the year under consideration being outside the scope and purview of section 153C, the assumption of jurisdiction and impugned assessment order is invalid and without jurisdiction. 3.1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the satisfaction note having been recorded without application of mind and in absence of any incriminating material suggesting undisclosed income, the CIT(A) was not justified upholding the validity of notice u/s 153C which is arbitrary and not sustainable under the law. 3.2 That the satisfaction note being based on unsubstantiated and uncorroborated digital information found from third party having no evidentiary value, the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153C is misconceived and on mechanical basis. 4. That the CIT(A) has erred in upholding the validity of the impugned assessment order in absence of proper approval in terms of section 153D of the Act. 5.1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was not justified in upholding the addition to the extent of Rs. 11,98,000/- u/s 69A on the alleged ground of unexplained payment of cash without appreciating the facts of the case. 5.2 That the entry appearing in some unauthenticated ledger account in the name of NK Malhotra, maintained by a third- Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA Nos.810 & 811/Del/2025 party document has no relevance or bearing to the assessee and as such the impugned addition is misconceived and devoid of justification. 5.3 That the reference to statement referred in the assessment order in the absence of any opportunity of cross examination is irrelevant and does not deserve any credence. 5.4 That there being no case of any cash payment by the assessee, the impugned addition u/s 69 is unsubstantiated, baseless and merely based on conjectures and surmises. 6.1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition to the extent of Rs. 12,00,000/- u/s 69A in respect of credit entry in the bank account on the alleged ground of unexplained credit. 6.2 That amount received in the bank account does not pertain to the assessee and same being attributable to father of the assessee Mr.N K Malhotra, the addition in the hands of the assessee is misconceived and devoid of justification. 7. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition of Rs. 71,940/- u/s 69C on the alleged ground of commission @3% on the socalled accommodation entry of Rs. 23,98,000/- even though the same is on hypothetical basis and contrary to law. 8. That the orders passed by lower authorities are not sustainable on facts and are bad in law. 3. At the very outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee brought it to the notice of the Bench that the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) in this case is an ex-parte order without bringing on record the written submissions or supporting documents. The ld. Counsel also submitted that the notice issued by the ld. CIT(A) was never received by the assessee. Therefore, in the absence of any submissions or supporting documents filed by the assessee is an ex-parte order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is in violation of natural justice. Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA Nos.810 & 811/Del/2025 4. Per Contra, ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 5. We have considered the findings given by the ld. Assessing Officer in the assessment order and the ld. CIT(A) in appellate order. We find that there is nothing on record to prove that notice issued by the ld. CIT(A) were received by the assessee. The Revenue has not filed any documentary evidence what so ever in this regard. On the other hand, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that no notice issued by the Revenue for appellate proceedings was received by the assessee and therefore no compliance was made. 6. With this factual background, We are of this considered view that keeping in mind, the element of natural justice, the assessee should get opportunity to rebut the findings given by the ld. Assessing Officer before the Ld. Cit(A). Accordingly, we remand this case back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with direction to adjudicate this case after giving adequate and required opportunity to the assessee as per law and the assessee is also directed to co-operate with the Revenue in appellate proceedings without taking unnecessary adjournments, etc. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 20014-15 is allowed for statistical purposes. 8. As admitted by both the parties the facts of ITA No.811/Del/2025 are identical to those in ITA No.810/Del/2025. So, the decision therein would apply mutatis mutandis to this appeal also. Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA Nos.810 & 811/Del/2025 9. Finally, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 03rd February, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- [ANUBHAV SHARMA] [KRINWANT SAHAYA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated 03.02.2026 f{x~{tÜ f{x~{tÜ f{x~{tÜ f{x~{tÜ Copy forwarded to: 1. Assessee 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi, Printed from counselvise.com "