KRISHNA MAHESHWARI,UJJAIN vs. ITO WARD 1(2) UJJAIN, UJJAIN

ITA 336/IND/2025Status: DisposedITAT Indore12 October 2026AY 2017-1812 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the orders of both lower authorities were ex-parte in nature. It observed that the assessee was non-compliant at both the assessment and appellate stages. However, considering the assessee's affidavit regarding her father's illness and the need to secure the ends of justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order of the CIT(A). The case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for de novo consideration. The Tribunal found that both the Revenue's representative and the assisting Chartered Accountant were in agreement that the matter should be remanded. The appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The Revenue is in appeal against the order of the CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2017-18. The assessee, Krishna Maheshwari, was a non-filer for AY 2017-18. The Assessing Officer (AO) passed an ex-parte assessment order under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, computing the total income at Rs. 1,03,61,048/-. This included an addition of Rs. 19,44,520/- under section 69A for cash deposits during the demonetization period. The AO also estimated regular income at Rs. 84,16,528/- based on a deemed total turnover of Rs. 1,05,206,598/-, derived from bank deposits aggregating Rs. 10,71,51,118/-. The assessee failed to comply with statutory notices and summons. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's first appeal, upholding the AO's additions. The assessee then filed a second appeal before the ITAT.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under section 142(1) and the order passed under section 144 by the Assessing Officer were wrong and invalid? (Question of law and fact). The assessee contended that both the notice and the order were invalid. The revenue did not record specific arguments on this point, but implicitly supported the AO's actions by filing the appeal against the CIT(A)'s order. 2. Whether the treatment of entire bank deposits of Rs. 10,52,06,598/- as deemed business turnover, the estimation of net profit at Rs. 84,16,528/- at an excessive rate of 8% without basis, and the consequent addition were wrong, invalid, and unjustified? (Question of law and fact). The assessee argued that the turnover and profit estimation were arbitrary and lacked justification, not referring to past returns or audit reports. The revenue, by challenging the CIT(A)'s order which upheld the AO's additions, implicitly supported the AO's methodology.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 69A,Section 142(1),Section 250,Section 253

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE

Before: SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI & SHRI ARVIND SONI

Hearing: 08.10.2026

Per Paresh M. Joshi, JM:

This is an Appeal filed by the Revenue under section 253 of the Income tax Act 1961,[ herein after referred to as the Act

for the sake of brevity] before this tribunal. The Revenue is aggrieved by the order bearing No:-ITBA/NFAC

/S/250/2024-25/1070050144 (1) dated 30.10.2024 passed

by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act which is hereinafter

referred as the “Impugned Order”. The Relevant Assessment

Krishna Maheshwari ITA No. 336/Ind/2025 AY-2017-2018 Year is 2017-2018 and the corresponding Previous Period is from 01/04/2016 to 31/03/2017. 2. FACTUAL MATRIX

2.

1 That as and by way of an Assessment Order made u/s 144 of the Act, the total Income of the Assessee was computed and

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 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →