SUKHVEER SINGH DHILOW,ASHOKNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ASHOK NAGAR
What were the facts?
The assessee, a farmer, did not appear before the Assessing Officer (AO) or the CIT(A) during assessment proceedings. The AO added cash deposits and interest income to the assessee's total income under Section 144 of the Act. The CIT(A) also dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the AO for fresh assessment. This was done to provide the assessee with an opportunity to substantiate their claim of agricultural income.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee was provided with a reasonable opportunity to present their case, and if the cash deposits were indeed from exempt agricultural income.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA (DB
Before: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH & SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH
PER : BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 03.02.2026 passed in appeal No. NFAC/2011-12/10208852 by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)] u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for the A.Y. 2012-13, wherein ld. CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s appeal ex-parte.
In this case, the assessee was not present during the course of hearing when the appeal was called twice for hearing. However, this case was heard with the assistance of Sr. DR. This case was reopened u/s. 148 of the Act vide notice dated 28.03.2019 on the basis of the info
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
More judgments on Section 148
- Nohar Yadav, Mandir Hasoud, Teh. Arang vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 1(2), Raipur…ITA 640/RPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Nohar Yadav, Mandir Hasoud, Teh. Arang vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 1(2), Raipur…ITA 639/RPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Nohar Yadav, Mandir Hasoud, Teh. Arang vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 1(2), Raipur…ITA 638/RPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Ashok Khubchandani, Raipur vs DCIT, Circle 1(1), RaipurITA 437/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Kishorbhai C Bhagtani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1)(1), RajkotITA 999/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Rajlaxmi Agro Food Product Private Limited And Anr. vs. The Superint., CGST And Cx, Berhampore Range, Berhampore Division, Bolpur Commiss. And Ors.Calcutta · 6 Oct 2026
- Shibsankar Ghosh vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.Calcutta · 6 Oct 2026
- Shankar Prasad Gupta vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.Calcutta · 6 Oct 2026
- Alkem Laboratories Limited vs. Commissioner Of CGST And Central Excise, RaigadBombay · 6 Oct 2026
- Axis Bank LTD vs. State Of Maharashtra Thru. G P And AnrBombay · 6 Oct 2026