SUJIT KUMAR,NAWADA vs. ITO, WARD- 2 (5), BIHARSHARIF
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal set aside the appellate order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(Appeals) to provide the assessee with one more opportunity to be heard, emphasizing the principle of natural justice.
What were the facts?
The assessee deposited a significant amount of cash during the demonetization period. Despite notices, the assessee failed to provide the source of these deposits, leading to an ex-parte assessment and dismissal of the first appeal.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee was denied a proper opportunity to present their case before the appellate authority, and if the matter should be remanded for a fresh hearing.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA-PATNA ‘e-COURT’, KOLKATA
Before: Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Vice-(KZ)
Assessment Year :2017-2018 Sujit Kumar,……………………...……..…………Appellant S/o. Krishna Chaudhary, Vill. Kusha, P.O. Narhat, Nawada-805122, Bihar [PAN:BLPPK0041L] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…..……………………….....Respondent Ward-2(5), Biharshariff Appearances by: N o n e, appeared on behalf of the assessee Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, JCIT, appeared on behalf of the Revenue Date of concluding the hearing: December 04, 2024 Date of pronouncing the order: December 12, 2024 O R D E R
The present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against the order of ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals), Udaipur dated 15th January, 2024 passed for Assessment Year 2017-18.
Brief facts of the case are that the appellant-assessee is an Individual, who filed his return of income for the assessment year 2017-18. As per information made available with the Department, the assessee had deposited total cash of Rs.6,27,500/- in his Bank 1 (A.Y. 2017-2018) Sujit Kumar account bearing No.35417153161 and Rs.4,05,750/- in his account bearing no. 35028734464 maintained with State Bank of India, Hisua Branch, Hisua during the demonetization period. Accordingly notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued requiring to file return of income by 15.03.2018, but the assessee did not respond to the notices issued under section 142(1) of the Act. Since there was no compliance from the assessee, the ld. Assessing Officer concluded the assessment under section 144 of the Act at an assessed income of Rs.2,07,540/-.
On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). During the appellate proceedings before the ld. CIT(Appeals), the ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) issued several notices to the assessee, but the assesese failed to furnish any source for cash deposits or filed any written submission. Therefore, in the absence of evidence, the ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by confirming the order passed by the ld. Assessing Officer.
On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ITAT and raised various grounds including the ground that the ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) has not given proper opportunity to the assessee to establish his case before him. Therefore, the assessee pleaded in his grounds of appeal that it is a fit case to remit the matter back to the file of ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) by providing one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
(A.Y. 2017-2018) Sujit Kumar 5. The ld. Departmental Representative submitted that so many opportunities were given to the assessee but there was no response from the assessee. Therefore, Revenue Authorities have no option except passing of the order based on the material available on record. He, therefore, pleaded to uphold the order passed by the ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals).
I have heard the ld. D.R. and perused the material available on record. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in order to meet the principle of natural justice, I am inclined to set aside the order passed by the ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) and remit the matter back to the file of ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) with a direction to provide one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. At the same breath, I also hereby caution the assessee to promptly co-operate with the proceedings before the ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) failing which the ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law and merits based on the materials available on the record. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 12/12/2024.
More judgments on Section 142(1)
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Subhash Chand Saini, Jaipur vs ITO Ward, Behror, BherorITA 36/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Venish Vinodray Lalani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, MorbiITA 197/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Gaurav Jiteshbhai Joshi, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1000/RJT/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Rentex Polymers Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxDelhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Shila Traders vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Ashish Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner Gsto Ward No. 86Delhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bhanwal Trading And Company vs. The Union Of INDIARajasthan · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Saraswati Enterprises vs. State Of RajasthanRajasthan · 28 Oct 2026