Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a senior citizen, failed to file a return for AY 2012-13. The case was reopened, and after the assessee filed a return and provided some explanation, the AO made an addition of Rs. 1,11,15,000/- for unexplained cash credits. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution.
Held
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) did not grant sufficient opportunity to the assessee, who is a senior citizen. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing proper opportunity.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without adjudicating the grounds, and whether the addition under Section 68 was justified without proper documentary evidence.
Sections Cited
250, 251, 68, 148
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Before: SHRI. AMIT SHUKLA & SMT. RENU JAUHRI
आदेश / O R D E R PER RENU JAUHRI [A.M.] :- This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated 28/07/2023 passed u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] for Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2012-13.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
1. Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order dated 28.07.2023 as passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) is bad in law since it dismisses the appeal on the reason of non-prosecution and does not adjudicate on the grounds/additional grounds of appeal
and the issues under consideration. The said order being in violation of the provisions of Section 250 and 251 of the Act and the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional Bombay High Court in "CIT vs. Premkumar Ay 2012
13. Indira Vashdev Gandhi Arjundas Luthra (HUF)-[2016] 69 taxmann.com 407 (Bombay)" may be quashed.
2. Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the "the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in deciding the appeal ex-parte in violation of the principle of natural justice. Thus, the order dated 28.07.2023 may be set aside and the matter may be restored back to the file of the learned Commissioner (Appeals).
3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the National Faceless Appeal Centre/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ("the learned Commissioner (Appeals)) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 30,00,000/- under Section 68 of the Act which was made by the learned assessing officer on the basis of the deposits appearing in the bank account with Bank of India. It is well settled principle of law that section 68 addition cannot be made on the basis of entries appearing in the bank statement in the absence of books of accounts maintained by the Assessee. Thus, the said addition of Rs. 1,11,15,000/- being contrary to the decision of the jurisdictional Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of "CIT vs. Bhaichand N. Gandhi 141 ITR 67 (Bom.)" may be deleted.
4. Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the addition of Rs. 30,00,000/- being unsustainable in law may be deleted.
5. Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the addition of Rs. 51,15,000/- being unsustainable in law may be deleted.
Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the addition of Rs. 30,00,000/- being unsustainable in law may be deleted. Miscellaneous ground: 7. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, rescind, or amend any of the above grounds of appeal.”
Brief facts are that the assessee did not file return of income for AY 2012- 13. Based on the information received by the department regarding purchase of immovable property and deposits in savings bank account, the case was reopened and a notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued on 28.03.2018. In response to this notice, the assessee filed return declaring income of Rs. 2,42,040/- on 09.05.2018. In response to various notices issued by the Ld. AO, the assessee furnished written reply giving explanation regarding the source of deposits in Ay 2012-13 Indira Vashdev Gandhi the bank account. However, no documentary evidence in support of various claims was filed. Accordingly, Ld. AO treated the same as unexplained cash credits u/s. 68 of the Act and made an addition Rs.1,11,15,000/- to the returned income and finalised the assessment at an income of Rs. 1,13,57,040/-. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). In responses to the notice dated 26.01.2021, the assessee requested for an adjournment. Subsequently another notice was issued on 28.04.2023 to which no compliance was made by the assessee. We have perused the grounds of appeal and after material placed before us. We observed that the assessee is a senior citizen nearly 80 years of age. Considering that sufficient opportunity was not been granted by the Ld. CIT(A), in view of the fact and considering the circumstances and the fact that assessee is a senior citizen, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter back to Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after giving proper opportunity to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to make requisite compliance before Ld. CIT(A).
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 30.07.2025.