YUVARAJ RAMADEO ATONE,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 4(1), NAGPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 282/NAG/2026Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur31 July 2026AY 2017-183 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication after providing the assessee with an opportunity of hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerns an addition of Rs. 13,50,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of cash deposits during the demonetization period. The CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order due to non-compliance by the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without properly considering the assessee's submissions and evidence, and whether the cash deposits were adequately explained.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 143(3),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SMC BENCH,

Before: Dr. MANISH BORAD

For Appellant: Shri Himesh Demble, CA
For Respondent: Shri Shiv Shankar Yadav, DR (Virtual)
Hearing: 31.07.2026Pronounced: 06.08.2026

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण " एस एम सी "न्यायपीठ नागपुर में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "SMC" BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE Dr. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.282/NAG/2026 ननिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vs Income Tax Yuvaraj Ramadeo Atone, 207, Shanti Kunj, Near Officer, Ward- Sharda Mandir, 4(1), Nagpur Ganeshpeth, Nagpur- 440018 Maharashtra PAN-ABFPA6798K Appellant Respondent

Assessee by : Shri Himesh Demble, CA (through Virtual) Revenue by : Shri Shiv Shankar Yadav, SR DR (Virtual) Date of hearing : 31.07.2026 Date of pronouncement : 06.08.2026 आदेश/ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, A.M. :

This appeal at the instance of assessee is directed against the order passed by Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 dated 11.02.2026 which is arising out of the Assessment Order passed u/s.143(3) of the IT Act dated 20.12.2019. 2 2. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in passing the order without properly appreciating the facts of the cases and without considering the detailed submissions and explanations furnished by the assesse during the course of appellate proceedings.

2.

That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in stating that no submissions were made by the assesse, which is incorrect. The assesse had duly filed detailed written submissions along with supporting evidences during the course of the appellate proceedings; however, the same has also been acknowledge by the Ld. CIT(A).

3.

That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer on the account of cash deposits amounting to Rs. 13,50,000/- made during the demonetization period, without appreciating that such deposits were duly explained and sourced from earlier cash withdrawals.

4.

That the order passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax u/s. 250 is illegal, unjustified and bad in law and therefore liable to be set aside.

5.

The appellant prays for leave to add, amend, alter, withdraw any other ground at the time of hearing of appeal.

3.

The grievance of the assesse is against the addition for unexplained cash deposit u/s 69A of the Act at Rs. 13,50,000/-.

4.

I have heard rival contentions and perused the record placed before me. Undisputed fact is that Ld. CIT(A) has passed the Ex-Parte order on account of non-compliance by assesse. Under the given facts and circumstances of the case I deem it appropriate to remit back the issue raised in the instant appeal to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for necessary adjudication and decide in accordance with law as contemplated u/s 250(6) of the Act. Needless to mention that proper opportunity of hearing shall be given to the assesse. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable

cause. Effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

5.

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

Order pronounced on this 06th day of August, 2026. (MANISH BORAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे /Pune; दिन ांक /Dated: 06th August, 2026. Neeta Neeta Milind Digitally signed by Neeta Milind Shirsath Shirsath Date: 2026.08.11 14:38:37 +05'30' आदेश की प्रनिललपप अग्रेपर्ि /Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant. 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. पवभागीय प्रनिननधि, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, "एस एम सी" बेंच, नागपुर/ DR, ITAT, "SMC" Bench, Nagpur 5. गार्ा फाइल/ Guard File.

आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER,

सहायक रजिस्ट्रार/

More judgments on Section 69A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →