JABAR BHURARAM CHAUDHARY,LUNAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE WARD 1, LUNAWADA, LUNAWADA

ITA 2640/AHD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 October 2026AY 2017-185 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What were the facts?

The assessee, Jabar Bhuraram Chaudhary, failed to file his return of income for Assessment Year 2017-18. The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated proceedings under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, after the assessee did not comply with a notice under Section 142(1) and a summons under Section 131. The AO treated cash deposits of Rs. 20,22,150/- in an undisclosed HDFC bank account as unexplained credit under Section 68. Additionally, unsecured loans of Rs. 84,26,370/- were added as unexplained due to lack of evidence for identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness. Differences in the balance sheet led to rejection of books and an addition of Rs. 19,92,029/-. The assessment was completed on 28.12.2019 at a total income of Rs. 1,36,95,660/-. The assessee's appeal to the CIT(A) was dismissed, leading to the present appeal before the ITAT.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided the email address shajigar1983@gmail.com in Form No. 35 for receiving notices. However, the CIT(A) had issued notices to different email addresses (joshi.arpit31@gmail.com and vjkmrgujjar@gmail.com), which the assessee claimed did not belong to him. Given that the notices from the CIT(A) were not sent to the correct email address as per the assessee's Form 35, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to set aside the matter to the file of the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to grant another opportunity of being heard to the assessee, issuing notice to the correct email address shajigar1983@gmail.com. The assessee was also directed to comply with the notices and make submissions. Subsequently, the CIT(A) is to decide the matter on merits. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Assessing Officer erred in law and facts by passing an order under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, given the assessee's alleged compliance and submissions during assessment proceedings. 2. Whether the Learned CIT(Appeals) erred in passing an ex-parte order and dismissing the appeal without appreciating the facts, and if the matter should be set aside to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing due to circumstances beyond the appellant's control. 3. Whether the Learned CIT(Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 20,22,150/- on account of cash deposits and other credit entries, and if the addition should be deleted after fresh verification. 4. Whether the Learned CIT(Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 84,26,370/- on account of deposits and unsecured loans, and if the addition should be deleted after fresh verification. 5. Whether the Learned CIT(Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 19,92,029/- on account of estimation of Gross Profit, and if the addition should be deleted after fresh verification. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte due to notices being sent to an incorrect email address (shajigar1983@gmail.com was provided in Form 35, but notices were sent to other addresses). The assessee requested the matter be set aside to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing with proper notice and opportunity to present evidence for all additions. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue had no objection if the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for allowing another opportunity to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 142(1),Section 131,Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA & SHRI SANJAY KUMAR

For Appellant: Shri Sulabh Padshah, AR
For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar Namdeo, SR-DR
Hearing: 17.09.2026Pronounced: 09.10.2026

PER NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated 23.06.2026 for the Assessment Years (A.Y.) 2017-18 in the proceeding u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act [hereinafter referred as “the Act”].

2.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee did not file his return of income for A.Y. 2017-18. The case was flagged for verification in AIMS Module of ITBA for cash deposits during demonetization period. The AO Jabar Bhuraram Chaudhary Vs ITO, AY- 2017-18 2 had

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.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

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 142(1)

All 17,096 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →