REKHA GOPAKUMAR NAIR,VADODARA vs. ITO, WARD-1(2)(2), , VADODARA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The assessee's AR requested an opportunity to comply with the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) and argued for a remand for adjudication on merits. The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, decided to remand the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to comply with all notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A). The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes, implying that the substantive issues were to be decided by the Ld. CIT(A). No specific finding was made on the addition of Rs. 13,26,000/- or the explanation of cash deposits, as the matter was sent back for fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee, Rekha Gopakumar Nair, filed an appeal against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (NFAC), Delhi, dated 27.03.2024, for Assessment Year 2017-18. The Assessing Officer had made an addition of Rs. 13,26,000/- out of total cash deposits of Rs. 21,42,000/-, citing the assessee's inability to explain the source of the cash. The Ld. CIT(A) issued four notices to the assessee, none of which were complied with. Consequently, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal summarily. The appeal before the ITAT was filed with a delay, which was condoned.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in summarily dismissing the appeal of the assessee for non-compliance with notices. Assessee's Contention: The assessee's authorized representative (AR) argued that if given an opportunity, due compliance would be made before the Ld. CIT(A). The AR prayed for the matter to be remanded to the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication on merits in the interest of justice. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the Revenue's Senior Departmental Representative (Sr. DR) regarding the dismissal of the appeal by the Ld. CIT(A) or the merits of the addition made by the Assessing Officer. The Sr. DR was present for the hearing.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY
PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:
- The captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(A)”), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi vide order dated 27.03.2024, under section 250 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. At the outset, we find that the Assessing Officer has made addition of Rs.13,26,000/-, out of the total deposits of Rs.21,42,000/- in cash, on the grounds that the assessee could not explain the source of cash. The Ld. CIT(A) issued four notices
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.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- A.Merchy Clara vs. The Commissioner Of GST And Central Excise (Appeals)Madras · 13 Oct 2026
- Nallathambi Thangaraj vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - IMadras · 13 Oct 2026
- Iyyanan Eswaran vs. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (St) (GST)Madras · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S. Hira Films PVT. LTD. vs. M/S. Prasad Film Labs (Mumbai) Private LimitedBombay · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Jung Bahadur Singh, Through Its Proprietor, Jang Bahadur Singh vs. The Union Of INDIA, Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of RevenueJharkhand · 13 Oct 2026
