VIKRANT TANWAR,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-53(3), NEW DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, the matter should be remitted to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer was directed to reconsider the issue after providing the assessee with a proper opportunity of being heard.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 12,80,500/- on account of unexplained cash deposits during demonetization, as the assessee did not reply to notices. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed for non-appearance.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and whether the addition and penalties were justified without proper consideration of the assessee's submissions.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 69A,Section 115BBE,Section 270A,Section 271AAC,Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH, ‘SMC’: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA
ORDER This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Ld.
CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi, dated 24.03.2022 and pertains to Assessment Year 2017-18.
The grounds of appeal read as under:-
“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. AO is bad in eyes of law.
2. That Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in passing the order without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard.
3. That the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 12,80,500/- made under section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act on account of alleged unexplained money deposited in the appellant’s bank account.
4. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the penalty under section 270A and 271AAC of the Act initiated by the Ld. AO.
5. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the interest under section 234A and 234B of the Act charged by the Ld. AO.”
Brief facts of the case are that in this case, the Assessing Officer passed order u/s 144 of the Act. Notice was issued to the assessee regarding limited scrutiny under CASS for the reason that there was cash deposit during the demonetization period. The total cash deposit in the bank account for the period FY 2016-17 was Rs.12,80,500/-. In absence of any reply by the assessee, the Assessing Officer added the same u/s 69A of the Act in the hands of the assessee.
Against the above order, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A).
Before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee did not appear. The Ld. CIT(A) in this circumstances, dismissed the assessee’s appeal
Against this order, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that there was no deliberate attempt on the part of the assessee to not appear before the authorities below. As regards notice which has been claimed to have been sent, the same was sent through on the e-mail ID of Ex-CA of the assessee and that the said CA never shared the notices with the assessee. Further, it has been pleaded that even the basic exemption limit i.e. Rs.2,50,000/- has not been considered by the Assessing Officer. The assessee came to know about the status of assessment only when his bank account was attached. It has further been submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) gave very short period within the span of 9 days, notices were never sent and dismissed the appeal. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed to give opportunity before the Assessing Officer to canvass the appeal.
Upon careful consideration and hearing both the parties, I am inclined that in the interest of justice will be well served if the matter is remitted to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to consider the issue afresh after giving proper opportunity of being heard. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has also agreed to cooperate with the Assessing Officer pursuant to this remand.
In the result, this appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 21st November, 2022.
More judgments on Section 69A
- Vishal Kumar Patel(HUF), Raipur vs DCIT, Circle-1(1), RaipurITA 595/RPR/2026[2017-18]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Ashok Singh, Jaipur vs ACIT, Circle-2 Jaipur, JaipurITA 1540/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Neepaben Sunnybhai Motwani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, RajkotITA 875/RJT/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Ashish Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner Gsto Ward No. 86Delhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Om.S.R. Construction, Through Its Proprietor Mr. Kuldeep Sharma vs. The State Of Jharkhand Through Its Commissioner, Commerical Tax DepartmentJharkhand · 28 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
- Akshaya Consortium vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
