AHLAWAR DEVELOPERS & PROMOTORS,PANCHKULLA vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), GURGAON
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal, noting that the assessee was not properly represented and the CIT(A) order was exparte, decided to grant the assessee another opportunity. The issue was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee declared cash receipts of Rs. 11,758,750/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) added this amount to the assessee's income as the assessee failed to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the cash donors. The CIT(A) upheld the addition exparte.
What were the issues?
Whether the addition made under Section 68 for unexplained cash receipts is justified when the assessee was not afforded a proper opportunity to present its case.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI
Before: SH. N. K. BILLAIYA & MS. ASTHA CHANDRA
Appellant by Sh. M R Sharma, Advocate Respondent by Sh. RK Gupta, CIT DR Date of hearing: 24/08/2022 Date of Pronouncement: 24/08/2022 ORDER PER N. K. BILLAIYA, AM:
This appeal filed by the assessee is preferred against the order of the CIT(A)-I, Gurgaon dated 29.11.2018 for A.Y.2015-16.
The solitary grievance of the assessee read as under :- “1. That the order of the Assessing officer as upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Gurgaon making an addition of Rs.11758750/- under section 68 being the amount of cash received by the appellant during the year under consideration towards the cost of plot from its regular allotees is band in law and is against the judicial decisions in this behalf.”
None appeared on behalf of the assessee inspite of repetitive notices, therefore, we decided to proceed exparte. The DR was heard at length. Case records carefully perused.
The return of income was selected for scrutiny through CASS to verify whether cash in hand shown in return of income is correct, whether deduction claim on account of sales promotion expenses is admissible and whether sundry creditors are genuine.
During the course of the scrutiny assessment proceedings the AO found that the assessee has shown receipt of cash advance amounting to Rs.11758750/-. Assessee was asked to prove the identity and credit worthiness of the persons from whom it has shown alleged receipt of cash. On receiving no plausible reply the AO made the addition of Rs.11758750/-.
Assessee agitated the matter before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) by an exparte order confirmed the addition.
A perusal of the order of the CIT(A) show that he has issued a notice of hearing to the assessee and it has been mentioned that the notice was served through email and through speed post. The notice sent through speed post received back unserved with the comments “left”.
Though the Counsel of the assessee sent a reply stating that the appellant was not available and sought time for one month. Thereafter once again the appellate proceedings remained unattended.
In the interest of justice we are of the considered view that the assessee should get one more opportunity in its defence. We restore the entire issue to the files of the AO and the assessee is directed to attend the assessment proceedings and reply to the querries raised by the AO and the AO is directed to examine the same and decide the issue afresh after affording a reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose. 11. Decision announced in the open court in the presence of both the parties on 24.08.2022.
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
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Sahoo Supply Agency,Balasore vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs,New DelhiOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S Jyoti Consultants, Agrahat vs. Pr. Commissioner GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, BhubaneswarOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S. Sahoo Supply Agency vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And CustomsOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- Gopal Aromatic PVT. LTD., Cuttack vs. Union Of INDIAOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S. Nourangi Paints vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 2 Nov 2026