MOTI SINGH SHEKHAWAT,RINGUS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , NEEM KA THANA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 422/JPR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 August 2026AY 2015-20164 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) due to the assessee's inability to appear due to unavoidable circumstances. The case was remanded for a fresh decision after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer noticed significant cash deposits in the assessee's bank account and reopened the assessment. The assessee failed to appear before the CIT(A) despite notices, leading to an ex-parte order.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee to present their case. The validity of the reopening and the addition made under Section 69 were also contested.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69,Section 115BBE,Section 148A,Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 149

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR “SMC” BENCH, JAIPUR

Before: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA & SHRI KULDIP SINGH

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR “SMC” BENCH, JAIPUR (PHYSICAL HEARING) BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No: 422/JPR/2026 Assessment Year: 2015-16

Moti Singh Shekhawat Income Tax Officer Shyam Ji Ka Mohalla Ward Neem Ka Vs Ringus, Shrimadhopur, Thana, Neem Ka Sikar. Thana. PAN: FBFPS8197R (Respondent) (Appellant)

Assessee Represented: Sh. Sauravh Harsh, Adv. Revenue Represented: Ms. Aarti Rawat, Addl.CIT Date of hearing : 20-08-2026 Date of pronouncement : 31-08-2026 ORDER PER : KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

The Appellant, Moti Singh Shekhawat (hereinafter referred to as the ‘assessee’) by filing the present appeal, sought to set aside the impugned order dated 05.01.2026 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] qua assessment year 2015-16 on the grounds inter-alia that:- “1. That in the law and in the facts and circumstances of the case the ld. C(T(A) grossly erred in passing the ex-parte order and confirming the addition made by the ld. Assessing Officer.

I.T.A No. 422/JPR/2026 Page No 2 Moti Singh Shekhawat

2.

That on the law and in the facts and circumstances of the case the ld. Assessing Officer grossly erred in issuing notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act on the basis of admittedly erroneous and incorrect information. 3. That on the lad and in the facts and circumstances of the case the ld. Assessing Officer grossly erred in invoking the limitation period as provided u/s 149I(b) of the Act when he alleged income which has escaped is less than 50 lakh. 4. That on the lad and in the facts and circumstances of the case the ld. Assessing Officer grossly erred in making addition of Rs. 33,37,900/- u/s 69 of the Act without considering the detailed explanation and submission regarding cash deposit in the bank account of the assessee. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify or amend any ground on or before the date of hearing.” 2. Briefly stated, facts necessary for consideration and adjudication of the issues at hand are : Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has made transaction of Rs. 33,37,900/- by making cash deposit of Rs. 66,48,300/- in his saving bank account maintained with Union Bank of India. Consequently, Assessing Officer reopened the assessment by passing order u/s 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and issued notice u/s 148 of the Act. Despite numerous opportunities given to the assessee, he had neither filed reply nor return of income to the notice u/s 148 of the Act. However in response to the notice u/s 142(1) of the Act, assessee filed reply. Declining the contention raised by the assessee, AO proceeded to make addition of Rs.

I.T.A No. 422/JPR/2026 Page No 3 Moti Singh Shekhawat

33,37,900/- having been earned from unexplained sources u/s 69 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. 3. Assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) by way of filing appeal, who has dismissed the same ex-parte due to non appearance of the assessee. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), assessee has come up before the Tribunal by way of filing the present appeal. 4. We have heard Ld. ARs for the assessee and Ld. DR for the Revenue and perused the record available on file. 5. Bare perusal of the impugned order passed by Ld. CIT(A) particularly para 5 of the impugned order goes to prove that despite giving four notices issued to the assessee, he has failed to appear before Ld. CIT(A) to pursue his appeal. On the first date of hearing i.e. on 18.11.2024, assessee sought adjournment, which was granted thereafter failed to appear and consequently, Ld. CIT(A) proceeded to file ex-parte order. It is contended that assessee due to unavoidable circumstances and medical emergency in the family of his tax practitioner, could not put in appearance nor he intimated the assessee to appear before Ld. CIT(A) to get adjournment.

I.T.A No. 422/JPR/2026 Page No 4 Moti Singh Shekhawat

6.

Keeping in view that hardship having been faced by the assessee and the facts and circumstances of the case that assessee is required to get reasonable opportunity to appear and to pursue his appeal before Ld. CIT(A) to decide the issue once for all and to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings, impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is set aside to be decided afresh after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. 7. Resultantly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 31/08/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (KULDIP SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Jaipur Dated:- 31/08/2026. *Santosh. Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- 2. The Respondent- 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Jaipur. 6. Guard File By order,

Asst. Registrar

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →