JITENDER SINGH KATARIA,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD 2(1), GURGAON
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits instead of dismissing it on limitation. The delay was condoned, and the case was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on the merits of the grounds raised.
What were the facts?
The assessee declared income including agricultural income. The Assessing Officer (AO) made additions based on cash deposits and capital gains from agricultural land sale, which the assessee contended was explained. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on limitation grounds.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal on limitation without considering the merits of the case, and whether the additions made by the AO were justified.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA
O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, JM:
This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-1, Gurgaon, dated 19.09.2017, pertaining to the assessment year 2013-14. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:
“1. That the Ld. CIT (Appeal) has erred in law as well as fact of the case
That no notice was served at the residential address of the assessee where as the Authorised Representative of the assessee kept on misguiding the assessee that the case is being persued.
3. That the addition made by Ld. AO of Rs. 68,40,000/-as undisclosed Income is not tenable as the assessee had sold agricultural Land which was well explained to the AO.
4. That the Assessee reserves the right to add , amend or delete any ground of appeal at the time of hearing.
2. Briefly stated facts are that in this case the assessee filed its return of income declaring income of Rs. 2,50,760/- and agricultural income of Rs. 1,30,000/-. The case was selected for scrutiny assessment. The Assessing Officer, during the course of assessment, sought explanation about the source of cash deposited in the bank account of the assessee. However, the explanation of the assessee before the Assessing Officer was that the assessee had sold agricultural land and a copy of sale-deed was also furnished by the assessee. The Assessing Officer did not accept the contention of the assessee and computed the capital gain at Rs. 25,33,334/-. He further made addition of Rs. 60,80,000/-, the amount which was deposited in the bank account of the assessee. Hence the Assessing Officer assessed total taxable income at Rs. 71,30,760/-. Aggrieved against this, the assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(Appeals), who dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation without adverting to the merit of the case. Now the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.
No one attended the hearing on behalf of the assessee. It is seen that various adjournments have been granted to the assessee, however, no one has attended the proceedings. Therefore, the appeal is taken up for hearing in the absence of the assessee.
Learned Sr. DR supported the orders of the authorities below.
We have heard the learned DR and perused the material available on record.
We find that the Assessing Officer has recorded the fact that the assessee had explained the source of cash deposit as the sale consideration of the agricultural land, which he had sold. However, the contention was rejected on the ground that requisite information was not filed. Further, the Assessing Officer computed capital gain of Rs. 25,33,334/- and also made addition of the cash deposited in the bank account of Rs. 68,80,000/-. However, the Assessing Officer has not stated at what amount the entire income has been assessed. The learned CIT(Appeals) without adverting on merit rejected the appeal on the ground of limitation.
Therefore, considering the totality of the facts we are of the considered view that the learned CIT(Appeals) ought to have decided the issue on merit. We, therefore, considering the material available on record condone the delay and restore the CIT(Appeals), to be decided on merit.
We, therefore, direct the learned CIT(Appeals) to decide the issue on merit. The grounds raised in this appeal are allowed for statistical purposes.
Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in open court during the course of hearing on 10.01.2023.
More judgments on Section 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Sri Tatiparthy Venkata Swamy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 25 Oct 2026
- Piyush Shantilal Veera vs. State Of U.P.Allahabad · 23 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Pooja Shri Traders vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1Madras · 23 Oct 2026
- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026
