SHAIFALI JAIN,MUZAFFARNAGAR V. ITO WARD-3(2), MUZAFFANAGAR

ITA 3096/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Shaifali Jain against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC, New Delhi, for the Assessment Year 2015-16. The primary contention was the dismissal of the appeal by the CIT(A) in limine, upholding the Assessment Order of the Assessing Officer (AO) without a speaking order on the merits. The assessee challenged several additions made to the income, which were based on the bank passbook and not on maintained books of account. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) noted the absence of compliance before the CIT(A), leading to an ex-parte decision, and thus decided to remand the case for a thorough examination on merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 786602 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 08-05-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: OM PRAKASH
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH,‘C’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTNAT MEMBER ITA No.3096/Del/2025 [Assessment Year: 2015-16] Shaifali Jain, 81, Parasnath Street Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh-251002 Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(4), Aayakar Bhawan, Meerut Road, Muzzafarnagar, Uttar Pradesh-251002 PAN-BKNPS2582P Assessee Revenue Assessee by None (Adjournment Application) Revenue by Shri Om Prakash Sr. DR. 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 06.03.2025 of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, New Delhi, for Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. That in any case and in any view of the matter, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in dismissing the appeal in limine by upholding the Assessment Order of the Ld. AO. 2. That in any case and in any view of the matter, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in dismissing the Appeal without making a speaking order on the merits of the case. Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No.3096/Del/2025 3. That in any case and in any view of the matter, the Learned CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the Assessment Order of the Learned AO when no books of accounts were maintained and also produced and the additions have been made on the basis of the pass book of the bank, which is not a book of account of the Appellant. 4. That in any case and in any view of the matter, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the addition of Rs.1,33,58,229 to the returned income disregarding the opening balance of the Capital Account as on the first day of the Financial Year under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. That in any case and in any view of the matter, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the Assessment Order passed by the Ld. AO with respect to addition of Rs.53,00,000 to the returned income on account of refund of loan given in earlier years under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. That in any case and in any view of the matter, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the Assessment Order when Rs.53,00,000 as included in the opening capital was added second time on receipt of refund of loan during the Financial Year. 7. That in any case and in any view of the matter, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the Assessment Order with respect to deposit of cash in bank account of Rs.33,588 alleged to be out of unexplained cash sources. 3. At the very outset, it was brought to the notice of the Bench that there was no compliance made before the Ld. CIT(A), therefore, the ld. CIT(A) has passed the order ex-parte. 4. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. 5. Per contra, ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below. Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No.3096/Del/2025 6. We have considered the findings given by the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A), we find that the ld CIT(A) had decided the issue ex parte without adjudicating the issue on merits. Keeping in view, the elements of natural justice, we are inclined to remand this issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to give adequate opportunity to the assessee of being heard and pass an order on merits. Accordingly, the appeal is remanded back to the file of the ld. CIT(A). 7 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 19th November, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- [ANUBHAV SHARMA] [KRINWANT SAHAY] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 19.11.2025 f{x~{tÜ f{x~{tÜ f{x~{tÜ f{x~{tÜ Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. PCIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi Printed from counselvise.com "