SHRI KISHORE SINGH SHEKHAWAT,HANUMANGARH vs. ITO, WARD-2, HANUMANGARH

PDF · subscribers
ITA 89/JODH/2024Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur07 August 2026AY 2011-125 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It found that the assessee did not get a proper opportunity to present supporting evidence before the First Appellate Authority. Therefore, the issue was restored to the First Appellate Authority for de novo adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee did not file an income tax return. The Assessing Officer reopened the assessment based on cash deposits of Rs. 1,08,50,000/-. The Assessing Officer treated Rs. 1,06,30,000/- as unexplained money under Section 69A and added it to the assessee's income.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause from presenting his case before the lower authorities and whether an opportunity should be granted to submit additional evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Ojha, Advocate (Physically)
For Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Nair, Addl. CIT-DR (Physically)
Hearing: 03/08/2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR

BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No. 89/Jodh/2024 (Assessment Year 2011-12) Sh. Kishore Singh Shekhawat Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Vs. S/o Umed Singh, Chak-24 STG, Hanumangarh (Raj) Pilibangan, Hanumangarh- 335803 Rajasthan PAN No. BZOPS 8648 J Assessee by Shri Suresh Ojha, Advocate (Physically) Revenue by Ms. Nidhi Nair, Addl. CIT-DR (Physically) Date of Hearing 03/08/2026. Date of Pronouncement 07 / 08 / 2026.

ORDER Per: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice President :

By filing the present appeal, the assessee has challenged the order dated 26-6-2023 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the Assessment Year 2011-12.

2.

The appeal has been filed by the assessee with a delay of 173 days. The assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay, explaining the reasons for belated filing of the appeal.

2 ITA No. 89/Jodh/2024 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) 3. Having considered rival submissions, we are satisfied that the delay in filing the appeal was due to reasonable cause. Hence, we are inclined to condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication.

4 Though the assessee has raised multiple grounds, however, at the time of hearing, learned counsel appearing for the assessee made a submission that since the assessee was prevented by unavoidable circumstances in representing his case before the Departmental Authorities, an opportunity may be granted to the assessee to represent his case before learned First Appellate Authority with supporting evidences. Before we proceed to consider the acceptability of the aforesaid submission of learned counsel, it is necessary to briefly describe the relevant facts.

5.

The assessee is a resident individual. As is evident on record, the assessee did not file return income for the assessment year under dispute. However, information available with the Department indicated that in the previous year relevant to the assessment year under dispute, the assessee had deposited cash amounting to Rs.1,08,50,000/- in State Bank of India, Pilibanga. Based on such information, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment under section 147 of the Act. In course of assessment proceeding, the Assessing Officer called upon the assessee to explain the source of the cash deposits. As observed by the Assessing Officer, though initially the assessee did not comply with the notice

3 ITA No. 89/Jodh/2024 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) issued, however, subsequently the Authorized Representative of the assessee appeared and furnished reply along with the cash flow statement, vouchers of purchase made, etc., to explain the source of cash deposit. The Assessing Officer, however, was not convinced with the submissions of the assessee. Ultimately, he proceeded to treat the cash deposits of Rs.1,06,30,000/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and added to the income of the assessee. The assessee contested the aforesaid addition before learned First Appellate Authority. Alleging that the assessee neither furnished any details nor make any written submission, the First Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal by confirming the addition made.

6.

Before us, learned counsel appearing for the assessee had submitted that due to compelling and unavoidable circumstances arising out of medical exigencies, the assessee could not represent before First Appellate Authority and furnish supporting evidences to explain the source of cash deposits. He submitted that the assessee is an old man and not well acquainted with the faceless proceeding. He submitted, presently the assessee is in possession of documentary evidences to explain the source of cash deposit, provided an opportunity is granted to the assessee to do so. In this context, he drew our attention to application for admission of additional evidences along with the additional evidences attached thereto. Thus, he made a submission for restoring the issue before the First Appellate Authority for de novo adjudication.

4 ITA No. 89/Jodh/2024 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) 7. Having considered rival submissions and perused the materials on record, we find that before the Assessing Officer, though the assessee had made partial compliance, however, the submissions made and evidences furnished by the assessee were not to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer. Whereas, before the First Appellate Authority, the assessee, for whatever reasons, did not make any compliance except furnishing an application for submitting additional evidences. Before us, the assessee has furnished certain documentary evidences by way of additional evidence to explain the source of cash deposits. Keeping in view the fact that the assessee did not get an opportunity to furnish supporting evidences before the first appellate authority to explain the source of cash deposits for which reason the addition was confirmed, we are inclined to restore the issue relating to the addition made under Section 69A of the Act to the file of learned first appellate authority for de novo adjudication after considering the additional evidences furnished before us, as also further evidences which the assessee may intend to submit before the First Appellate Authority. Needless to mention, before deciding the appeal, assessee must be provided reasonable opportunity of being heard. At the same time, we direct the assessee to properly respond to and comply with the notice of hearing to be issued by the First Appellate Authority. With the aforesaid observations, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

5 ITA No. 89/Jodh/2024 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) 8. In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in open court on 07/08/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) (MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Dated : 07/08/ 2026. Amit Kumar Sr. PS True Copy Copies to : (1) The appellant. (2) The respondent. (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File BY ORDER,

More judgments on Section 69A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →