BHUMI TYRE SALES CORPORATION ,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 1, VALSAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal set aside the matter to the AO, allowing the assessee another opportunity to explain the cash and credit deposits, subject to a cost of Rs. 10,000/-. The AO was directed to pass an order on merits if the assessee failed to comply.
What were the facts?
The assessee failed to file its return of income for AY 2017-18. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated cash deposits and other credit entries totaling Rs. 1,80,76,929/- in the assessee's bank account as unexplained and made an addition. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal.
What were the issues?
Whether the entire cash and credit entries in the bank account can be treated as unexplained without considering debit entries and whether the assessee should be given another opportunity to explain the deposits.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “DB” BENCH, SURAT
Before: SHRI TR SENTHIL KUMAR & SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA
PER NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] dated 28.11.2023 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2017-18 in the proceeding u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act [hereinafter referred as “the Act”].
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee did not file its return of income for A.Y. 2017-18. The AO had received an information that the assessee had made cash deposit of Rs. 51,27,500/- in its bank accounts
ITA No.542/Srt/2025 Bhumi Tyre Sales Corporation, Asst.Year 2017-18 2 during demonetisation period from 09.11.2016 to 30.12.2016 in old currency notes. On the basis of this information, a notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act was issued on 09.03.2018 calling for the assessee to file its return of income. However, no return was filed in response to notice u/s. 142(1) as well. The AO had collected the copy of the statement from the banks and found that apart from the cash deposits there were deposits by cheques and other credits as well. The AO had treated the entire cash as well as credit entries of Rs.1,80,76,929/- in the bank account as unexplained and accordingly, made the addition. The assessment was completed u/s. 144 of the Act on 29.09.2019 at total income of Rs. 1,80,76,930/-.
Aggrieved with the order of the AO, the assessee had filed an appeal before the first appellate authority, which was decided by the Learned CIT(A) vide the impugned order and the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. Th
Now the assessee is in second appeal before us. The following ground has been taken in this appeal:
The Ld. CIT(A) has erred and was not just and proper on the facts of the case and in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,80,76,929/- made u/s. 69A of the act.
Shri Suresh K Kabra, the Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal of the assessee for the reason that no compliance could be made before him and the grounds taken by the assessee were not adjudicated on merits. He, therefore, requested that the assessee may be allowed another opportunity to explain the cash as well as credit deposits by setting aside the matter to the file of the
ITA No.542/Srt/2025 Bhumi Tyre Sales Corporation, Asst.Year 2017-18 3 Jurisdictional AO. The Ld. AR contended that the Department was not correct in treating the entire cash and credit entries in the bank account as unexplained without taking into account the debit entries appearing in the bank statement itself.
Per contra, Shri Ajay Uke the Ld. SR-DR, supported the order of the lower authorities. However, he had no objection if the matter was set aside to the file of Jurisdictional AO, for allowing another opportunity to the assessee to explain the credit entries in the bank accounts.
We have considered the rival submissions. It is found that the assessee neither appeared before the AO nor before the Ld. CIT(A). The reason for the repeated non-compliance by the assessee has not been explained. At the same time, the addition for the entire cash deposits as well as credit entries appearing in the bank accounts, as made by the AO, also cannot be justified. The assessee was engaged in the business of trading in tyres and the cash deposits/credit entries in the bank account being part of its turn-over, cannot be ruled out. In the interest of justice, therefore, we deem it proper to set aside the matter to the file of Jurisdictional AO with a direction to allow another opportunity to the assessee to explain cash deposit as well as credit entries in the bank account; subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/-, which should be deposited to Prime Minister National Relief Fund within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. The assessee is also directed to make compliance before the AO in the course of set aside proceeding and produce the evidences and explanation regarding the source of cash deposits and the credit entries in the bank accounts. In case, the assessee does not make compliance, the Jurisdictional AO will have liberty to pass
ITA No.542/Srt/2025 Bhumi Tyre Sales Corporation, Asst.Year 2017-18 4
the order on merits as per law, on the basis of materials available on record.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the Court on 09/06/2026 at Ahmedabad.
Sd/- Sd/- (TR SENTHIL KUMAR) (NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated – 09th June, 2026 Neelesh, Sr. PS (True Copy) आदेश क� आदेश क� �ितिलिप �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : आदेश आदेश क� क� �ितिलिप �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत अ�ेिषत 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A) 5. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण / DR, ITAT, 6. गाड� फाईल /Guard file. आदेशानुसार/BY ORDER, आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार उप/सहायक उप सहायक पंजीकार पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) उप उप सहायक सहायक पंजीकार पंजीकार आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद अिधकरण अहमदाबाद अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad अहमदाबाद
More judgments on Section 142(1)
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Subhash Chand Saini, Jaipur vs ITO Ward, Behror, BherorITA 36/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Venish Vinodray Lalani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, MorbiITA 197/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Gaurav Jiteshbhai Joshi, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1000/RJT/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Shalini Vishwakarma vs. Icici BankMadhya Pradesh · 14 Oct 2026
- J M Mhatre Infra PVT. LTD Thr. Authorized Chetan J. Mhatre vs. Union Of INDIA Thr. Secretary Dept. Of Revenue Ministry Of Finance And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages PVT. LTD. vs. The Commissioner, CGST And Cx, Dibrugarh And AnrGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Shree Sushruta Health Services Private Limited vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Rst Batteries vs. Deputy Commissioner CGST Delhi West & Ors.Delhi · 14 Oct 2026