SHAKEELUNNISSA BEGUM,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal observed that the assessee had submitted documents to both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A), which were not considered. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal remitted the entire issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, directing the AO to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an ITR for AY 2017-18, and the case was selected for scrutiny. During assessment, cash deposits made during demonetization, sundry creditors, and income from S.J. & S.P. Family Trust were added to income under Section 68 due to alleged non-response and lack of documentation. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal as the assessee did not respond to notices.
What were the issues?
Whether the lower authorities erred in making additions and dismissing the appeal without properly considering the assessee's submissions and providing adequate opportunity of being heard.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI. LAXMI PRASAD SAHU & SHRI. KESHAV DUBEY
Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member :
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the Order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), vide DIN and Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1072993325(1) dated 06.02.2025.
Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that assessee filed return of income on 31.10.2017 declaring total income of Rs.15,60,00/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. Accordingly, notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued and served on the assessee. Thereafter, other statutory notices were issued to the assessee. From the documents available, it was noticed that assessee had deposited cash during demonetization period.
Page 2 of 4 During the course of hearing, various opportunities were granted to the assessee but the same was not availed by the assessee. Accordingly, for want of proper representation from the assessee’s side, the cash deposited amount to Rs.88,74,200/- into the bank account during the Financial Year 2016-17 was added as cash credit under section 68 of the Act. Further, it was noticed that there are sundry creditors of Rs.77,87,564/-. Assessee has not submitted any details of such sundry creditors. Accordingly, for want of proper documentation / explanations, it was also added under section 68 of the Act. Furhter, from No.26AS, it was noticed that there is TCS credits and the income was not offered amounting to Rs.8,45,460/- received from S.J. & S.P. Family Trust. It was also added into income of the assessee.
Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the learned CIT(A). During the course of appellate proceedings, learned CIT(A) issued various notices on different dates for substantiating here case but there was no response. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.
Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Counsel submitted that the assessee has filed documents before both the authorities but they have ignored their submissions which is evident from the Paper Book containing pages 1 to 130, filed by the assessee. He further submitted that the documents were filed before the learned CIT(A) on 29.05.2023. The acknowledgment is placed at Paper Book page No.5 on 16.06.2023 which is placed at Paper Book Page No.67. The learned CIT(A) also called for remand report from the AO. During the assessment proceedings, the entire documents were submitted, the proof of which is placed at Paper Book Page No.71 dated 17.01.2025. Assessee also made compliance on 23.01.2025 which has also not been considered. Accordingly, he requested that the matter may be sent back to the AO for fresh consideration.
Considering the rival submissions, we noted from the Paper Book filed by the assessee that the assessee has responded to the notices even during the assessment proceedings too. However, both the authorities below have not considered the submissions filed by the assessee. In view of this, considering the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we are remitting the issue back to the file of AO for fresh consideration. AO is directed to provide reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee as per law and assessee is directed not to seek unnecessary adjournment in the matter for early disposal of the case.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Pronounced in the court on the date mentioned on the caption page.
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
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Ramshrayashil Constructions PVT.LTD vs. Union Of INDIA Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Government Of INDIAJharkhand · 2 Nov 2026
- M/S. Kiea Corporate Business Solutions vs. The Deputy State Tax OfficerTelangana · 2 Nov 2026
- M/S. Vrajman Enterprises vs. The Deputy State Tax OfficerTelangana · 2 Nov 2026
- Nimmakayala Padmavathi vs. The Union Of INDIAAndhra Pradesh · 2 Nov 2026
- Som Nath Nagar Mal Th Partner Sanjay Mahajan vs. Union Of INDIA Th Department Of Financial Services, Ministry Of Finance And OthersJammu and Kashmir and Ladakh · 2 Nov 2026
