ITAT Remands Case to CIT(A): Non-Speaking Order Violates Principles of Natural Justice

The current appeal has been filed by an individual named Aditi Thapar (Appellant) against the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Respondent) in the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) “D” Bench, Ahmedabad. Before Dr BRR Kumar (Vice President) and Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member). The case is related to the assessment year 2014-15, was heard on November 03, 2025, and the final decision was announced on November 06, 2025.

The appeal challenged an order dated 30.04.2025, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), [CIT(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for assessment year 2014-15.

The assessee earns her income from sources including salary, rent, long-term capital gains and others. The assessee filed her income tax return (ITR) for the assessment year 2014-15, declaring a total income of Rs. 11,73,430. Later, the case was selected for scrutiny; during assessment, the AO made additions to the income of the assessee:

• Rs. 44.68 lakh under Section 68: Alleged bogus long-term capital gains (LTCG) from the sale of 9,300 shares of Turbotech Engineering Ltd.
• Rs. 51.31 lakh under Section 69: Alleged unexplained investment in a house property.
• Rs. 7.16 lakh under Section 69A: Unexplained cash payments made towards credit card bills.

Assessee dissatisfied with the action of the assessing officer, approached the CIT(A); however, the authority upheld the additions, claiming the evidence furnished by the assessee did not prove the genuineness of the share transactions. For the property investment, the lender’s creditworthiness was not properly proven, and for the credit card issue, the proof of agricultural income was not in her name. In conclusion, her appeal was dismissed completely.

Assessee, dissatisfied with the ruling of CIT(A), then approached ITAT Ahmedabad. The lawyer of the assessee argued that the CIT(A) passed the order without properly considering the documents and written submissions. Additionally, the passed order was non-speaking, issued without proper reasoning, unfair, and against the provisions of natural justice.

The ITAT Ahmedabad agreed with the claims of the assessee. It noted that the CIT(A) did not discuss or analyse the evidence properly, the order lacked proper reasoning and did not show that the officer applied their mind. To announce its decision, the tribunal cited the Supreme Court’s earlier judgments titled Kapurchand Shrimal v. CIT, Kanpur Coal Syndicate, Gee Vee Enterprises, and Walchand & Co.: an appellate authority must pass a reasoned and speaking order, and if not, the matter should be remanded for fresh adjudication.

In the final decision, the tribunal quashed the order of the CIT(Appeals). Remand the case back to the CIT(A) for fresh examination of all evidence. Additionally, instructed the CIT(A) to give the assessee a fair chance to present their side and documents again and after that, pass a proper and reasoned order. As a result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.