VASANTRAO NAMDEV JADHAV,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(4), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2662/AHD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 May 2026AY 2017-184 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without a proper adjudication on merits, despite the assessee's request for another opportunity. The Tribunal decided to set aside the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed a return of income for AY 2017-18. The Assessing Officer (AO) made additions for unexplained cash deposits during demonetisation and an unsecured loan, increasing the total income significantly. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex parte without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and whether the additions made by the AO were justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 68,Section 115BBE,Section 145(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE & SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA

For Appellant: Shri Aseem Thakkar, AR
For Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P Meena, SR-DR
Hearing: 21.04.2026Pronounced: 19.05.2026

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 15.10.2025 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2017-18 in the proceeding u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act.

2.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed his return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 on 15.10.2017 declaring total income of Rs.1,83,280/-. The case as selected for scrutiny to examine abnormal cash deposit during demonetisation period. In the course of assessment, the AO found that the assessee had made cash deposits of Rs.62,10,000/- during the demonetisation period from 09.11.2016 to

ITA No.2662/Ahd/2025 Vasantrao Namdev Jadhav Vs ITO, AY- 2017-18 2

31.12.2016 as against cash deposit of Rs.7,85,000/- only during the period from 01.04.2016 to 08.11.2016. The AO was not satisfied with the explanation of the assessee regarding the source of cash deposits made during demonetisation period. Further, the assessee had taken unsecured loan of Rs. 8,50,000/- during the year from HUF and on verification it was found that there was cash deposit of Rs. 7,00,000/- in the bank account of HUF before advancing the loan. Hence, the AO was not satisfied about the credit worthiness and genuineness of the loan transaction and, therefore, the unexplained unsecured loan was also added to income. The assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) on 27.12.2019 at total income of Rs. 72,43,280/-.

3.

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

4.

Now the assessee is in second appeal before us. The following grounds have been taken in this appeal:

1 The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has erred in passing an ex Parte order dismissing the appeal filed by the assesse without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant. Hence the same being against the principles of natural justice and law requires to be quashed. 2 The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.62.10,000/-made by the Assessing Officer treating the cash deposited in bank account as alleged unexplained cash deposits u/s.68 of the IT Act, 1961 r ws 115BBE of the Act in spite of the fact that same being cash sales of the appellant. 3 The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.62,10,000/-made by the Assessing Officer treating the normal business transactions of cash sales as undisclosed income and taxing the same as income from other sources and taxing the same applying the provisions of sec 115BBE of the Act.

ITA No.2662/Ahd/2025 Vasantrao Namdev Jadhav Vs ITO, AY- 2017-18 3 4. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has erred in confirming the additions made by the Assessing Officer in rejecting books of accounts of the appellant u/s.145(3) of the Act without pointing out any specific defect therein. 5 The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 8,50,000/-made by the Assessing Officer as alleged unsecured loans from undisclosed sources and taxing the same as income from other sources u/s.68 of the I. T. Act, 1961 r.ws.115BBE of the Act. 6. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has erred in confirming additions made by the Assessing Officer only on the basis of doubts, suspicions, conjectures and surmises and treating the normal business transactions, sales and purchase stock etc. as non-genuine. 7. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in applying the provisions of sec. 115BBE to the normal business transactions of the appellant which is illegal and bad in law. 8. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing of appeal.

5.

Shri Aseem Thakkar, the Ld. AR of the assessee submitted at the outset that no compliance could be made before the Ld. CIT(A), who had dismissed the appeal of the assessee without adjudicating the grounds taken by the assessee on merits. He, therefore, requested that the assessee may be allowed another opportunity by setting aside the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A).

6.

Per contra, Shri Rameshwar P Meena, the Ld. SR-DR had no objection if the matter was set aside to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for allowing another opportunity to the assessee.

7.

We have considered the request of the assessee. It is found that the Ld. CIT(A) had allowed three opportunities to the assessee but no compliance was made on any of the dates. The assessee has not explained the reason for non-compliance before the Ld. CIT(A). When the appeal was filed by the assessee, he should have been careful enough to

ITA No.2662/Ahd/2025 Vasantrao Namdev Jadhav Vs ITO, AY- 2017-18 4

monitor the status of the pending appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). It was the duty of the assessee to watch his affairs before the CIT(A). The assessee was aware of the pending appeal, still no care was exercised and no compliance was made to the notices of the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee was certainly negligent and his act was lethargic. We, therefore, deem it proper to impose of cost of Rs. 10,000/- on the assessee, which should be deposited to Prime Minister National Relief Fund, within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Subject to payment of cost, the Ld. CIT(A) is directed to allow another opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to make compliance before the Ld. CIT(A) and furnish the evidences in respect to the grounds as taken before him.

8.

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

Order pronounced in the Court on 19/05/2026 at Ahmedabad.

Sd/- Sd/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) (NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated – 19th May, 2026 (True Copy) Neelesh, Sr. PS आदेश आदेश क� आदेश आदेश क� क� �ितिलिप क� �ितिलिप �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 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 पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) उप उप/सहायक उप उप सहायक सहायक पंजीकार सहायक पंजीकार पंजीकार आयकर अपीलीय आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण अहमदाबाद अहमदाबाद

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →