DHARWADKAR ASSOCIATES,HUBBALLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), HUBLI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the Commissioner's order dismissing the appeal was cryptic and lacked proper reasoning. The Tribunal decided to remand the case back to the Commissioner for a fresh decision after affording the Assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer made additions for difference in opening stock and unexplained cash deposits. The Assessee appealed but failed to provide compliance or documents to the Commissioner (Appeals), who dismissed the appeal summarily.
What were the issues?
Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in summarily dismissing the appeal for non-compliance without proper adjudication on merits, and whether the case should be remanded for a fresh decision.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCH “A”, BANGALORE
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & SHRI WASEEM AHMED
Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:
This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 08.02.2024, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC)/ Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2017-18.
In this case, the Assessing Officer (AO) vide assessment order dated 19.12.2019 u/s 143(3) of the Act, has made the additions of Rs.78,37,888/- being difference between opening stock as against the actual stock and Rs.21,73,300/- being cash deposit as unexplained u/s 68 of the Act.
The Assessee, being aggrieved against the aforesaid additions though preferred first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, however, despite of affording various opportunities the Assessee eventually made no compliance and/or filed no submissions/documents and therefore the Ld. Commissioner in the constrained circumstances dismissed the appeal of the Assessee affirming the findings of the AO in the assessment order and the aforesaid additions.
We have given thoughtful considerations to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. We observe that though the Ld. Commissioner has mentioned in the impugned order that “once an appeal is preferred before the Ld. CIT(Appeals), it becomes obligatory on his part to dispose of the same on merit and it is not open for him u/s 250 of the Act to summarily dismiss the appeal on account of non- prosecution of the same by the appellant”, however, the Ld. Commissioner dismissed the appeal of the Assessee just by mentioning that “the findings of the AO in the assessment order are found to be a self-speaking and do not require any interference. The appeal is dismissed”, which in our considered opinion is a clear-cut cryptic order not bases on any reasons and/or grounds “as to how the assessment order has been substantiated”.
Thus, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances in totality, for just and proper decision of the case, equitable relief, fair play and substantial justice, we are inclined to remand the instant case to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, suffice to say by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee.
We also deem it appropriate to direct the Assessee to comply with the notices to be issued by the Ld. Commissioner and file the relevant submissions and documents as would be essentially required for proper and just decision of the case. We also clarify that in case of subsequent default, the Assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency. Thus the case is remanded to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh accordingly.
In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 14.08.2025.
More judgments on Section 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026