MAHANTINAMATHA MANJUNATHA ,BELLARY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, HOSAPETE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the assessment and appellate orders were passed ex-parte. Considering that the assessee was not properly represented and that relevant CBDT circulars were not considered, the Tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, granting a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
What were the facts?
The appeal was filed by the assessee against an ex-parte order of the CIT(A)/NFAC. The assessee contended that they could not represent their case before the authorities and sought another opportunity. The Tribunal noted that CBDT circulars concerning demonetization period cash deposits were not considered by the authorities.
What were the issues?
Whether the ex-parte assessment and appellate orders passed without considering relevant CBDT circulars are valid, and if not, whether the matter should be remanded to the Assessing Officer for a fresh opportunity to the assessee.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC’’ BENCH: BANGALORE
Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & SHRI KESHAV DUBEY
PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dated 27.02.2024 vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1061571793(1) passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) for the assessment year 2017-18.
The assessee has raised eight grounds of appeal.
3. At the time of hearing, both parties fairly conceded that the assessment order as well as the order of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC are ex parte. The ld. A.R. of the assessee vehemently submitted that the Mahantinamatha Manjunatha, Bellary Page 2 of 3 assessee could not represent his case before both the authorities and accordingly prayed that one more opportunity may be granted before the AO to substantiate his claim. Further, we take note of the fact that the authorities below have not considered the CBDT circulars in order to verify the substantial cash deposits during the demonetization period. Even the AO during the assessment proceedings has not considered the relevant CBDT circulars that were issued for the purposes of verifying the demonetized cash deposited during the year under consideration. This being so, in the interest of justice and fair play, we deem it fit & proper to remit the entire issue in dispute to the file of AO for fresh consideration in accordance with law. Needless to say, a reasonable opportunity of being heard must be granted to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to cooperate with the proceedings before the revenue authorities and file the necessary documents/submissions/ information/books & records which would be essential and required by the revenue authorities for proper adjudication of the case. We clarify that in case of further default, the assessee shall not be entitled to any leniency. It is ordered accordingly.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 22nd Sept, 2025
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Rentex Polymers Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxDelhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Shila Traders vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Ashish Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner Gsto Ward No. 86Delhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bhanwal Trading And Company vs. The Union Of INDIARajasthan · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Saraswati Enterprises vs. State Of RajasthanRajasthan · 28 Oct 2026
