PREMAKUMAR,DHOLPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, BHARATPUR, BHARATPUR

ITA 662/JPR/2025Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 October 2026AY 2017-185 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee has now provided bank statements, cash book extracts, financial statements of M/s. Raghav Traders (assessee's proprietary concern), details of cash deposits, and sales/purchase invoices. Considering these materials, the Tribunal deemed it fit to set aside the matter back to the jurisdictional AO. The AO is directed to grant one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee, verify all the submitted documents, and then pass a fresh order on merits. The assessee is also directed to cooperate by filing all required documents before the AO. The Tribunal did not decide the merits of the addition made by the AO or the dismissal by the CIT(A) but focused on providing an opportunity for a fresh assessment.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Premakumar, is an individual who did not file his return of income for Assessment Year 2017-18. The Revenue received information about cash deposits in the assessee's IDBI bank account. The assessee, who runs a fertilizer shop, made cash deposits during the demonetization period. As the assessee failed to appear before the Assessing Officer (AO), an ex-parte assessment order was passed under Section 144, treating the entire cash deposit of Rs. 32,23,000/- as unexplained money under Section 69A and demanding tax. The assessee's appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was dismissed for non-prosecution. The assessee then filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) with a delay of 420 days, which was condoned.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned order passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing the assessee's appeal is arbitrary, unjust, and liable to be cancelled? (Mixed law and fact) 2. Whether the sustenance by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) of the AO's action, treating cash deposits totaling Rs. 32,23,000/- in the assessee's IDBI bank accounts as unexplained money under Section 69A and adding it to total income, is unjustified and not maintainable in law, or alternatively, excessive? - Assessee's Contention: The lower authorities failed to discharge the burden of proof to establish the cash deposits as unexplained money under Section 69A. The cash deposits and credit entries during the demonetization period were part of regular business activity and cannot be termed as unexplained money. Both the AO and CIT(A) erred in passing ex-parte orders without providing an opportunity of being heard. - Revenue's Contention: Not recorded in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 69A,Section 115BBE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC’ BENCH, JAIPUR

Before: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Dheeraj Borad, CA

PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This appeal is filed by the assessee as against the ex-parte appellate order dated 13.12.2023 passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, arising out of ex-parte assessment order passed u/s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Registry has noted that there is delay of 420 days in filling the above appeal. The assessee by way of notarized affidavit explained that he is little educated and do not know to operate computer and online

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 →