HEMRAJSINH KARANSINH SOLANKI,ANAND vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, ANAND, ANAND

PDF · subscribers
ITA 850/AHD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 August 2026AY 2011-124 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-compliance before the lower authorities. However, since the issue remained unadjudicated on merits, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment.

What were the facts?

The assessee deposited Rs. 13,87,000 in cash into their savings account and did not file a return for AY 2011-12. The Assessing Officer treated the cash as unexplained income under Section 69A. The assessee failed to provide explanations or evidence to the AO and the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the addition of unexplained cash deposits is justified when the assessee failed to provide evidence. Whether the appeal should be decided on merits or remanded due to non-compliance.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

For Appellant: Shri A.K Khandelwal, A.R
For Respondent: Shri Hrishikesh Patki, Sr.DR
Hearing: 27.07.2026Pronounced: 11.08.2026

PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:

- Delay Condoned This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order dated 05.08.2024 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld. CIT (A)’ in short), under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ in short) for Assessment Year 2011-12. ITA No. 850/AHD/2026, AY-2011-12 Hemrajsinh K Solanki - 2–

2.

The Assessee has raised the following grounds of Appeal:-

1.

That, in law, the impugned appellate order passed by the Ld.CIT(A), National faceless Appellate Centre (NFAC), New Delhi is against natural justice, bad in law and therefore, deserves to be annulled.

2.

That the Ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.13,87,000/- on account of cash deposit only the reason that the appellant could not comply the notices issued by the Ld.CIT(A).

3.

That, the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause for non- compliance of notices issued by Ld.CIT(A).

4.

The appellant craves to add, alter, amend or withdraw any grounds of appeal on or before hearing of the appeal.

3.

The brief facts of the case are that, as per the AIR information, the assessee had deposited cash amounting to Rs.13,87,000/- in his savings bank account during the relevant previous year and had not filed the return of income for Assessment Year 2011-12. Accordingly, after recording the reasons, the assessment was reopened and a notice under section 148 of the Act dated 26.03.2018 was issued and duly served upon the assessee. Despite being afforded sufficient opportunities to file the return of income and furnish the necessary details and evidence explaining the source of the cash deposits, the assessee remained non-compliant. In the absence of any satisfactory explanation, the Assessing Officer treated the cash deposits of Rs.13,87,000/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and added the same to the total income of the assessee.

4.

Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, despite being afforded adequate Hemrajsinh K Solanki - 3– opportunities, the assessee remained non-compliant and failed to furnish any documentary evidence or explanation to substantiate the source of the cash deposits. Consequently, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal

On perusal of the records, it is observed that the assessee was 5. afforded several opportunities of hearing to furnish details, clarifications and explanations to substantiate the source of unexplained cash deposits under section 69A of the Act. However, despite being granted multiple opportunities, the assessee remained non-compliant and failed to furnish the requisite details or explanations before the Ld. CIT(A). Consequently, the Ld. CIT(A), based on the material available on record, upheld the action of the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. We further observe that the assessee remained non-compliant and failed to submit any details or supporting evidence to establish the source of unexplained cash deposits even before the Assessing Officer.

6.

During the course of hearing before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed that given an opportunity, the assessee would furnish all the necessary details, clarifications and explanations before the revenue authorities. Since the issue remained unadjudicated on merits, in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to remand the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for conducting the assessment de novo The assessee is directed to submit all relevant bank statements, documents and explanations before the Assessing Officer and to strictly comply with the notices issued by the revenue authorities without seeking any unnecessary adjournments.

Hemrajsinh K Solanki - 4–

7.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

The order pronounced in the open Court on 11.08.2026 (RAHUL CHAUDHARY) VICE-PRESIDENT () () Ahmedabad; Dated 11.08.2026

आदेश की "ितिलिप अ"ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ"/ The Appellant

2.

""थ"/ The Respondent. 3. संबंिधतआयकरआयु"/ Concerned CIT 4. आयकरआयु"(अपील) /The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय"ितिनिध, आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, अहमदाबाद/ DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड"फाईल /Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,सहायकपंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →