Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a partnership firm dealing in gold and silver, had additions totaling over Rs. 1.14 Crores made by the AO for cash deposits during demonetization and under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte, citing a failure to adduce documentary evidence and holding the appeal as not maintainable.
Held
The Tribunal observed that both the AO and CIT(A) orders were passed ex-parte due to assessee's non-compliance. Applying principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the AO for a de novo assessment, granting the assessee a fresh opportunity to present its case.
Key Issues
Whether the ex-parte dismissal by the CIT(A) without adjudicating on merits was justified, and if the assessee deserved another opportunity to present evidence for a de novo assessment.
Sections Cited
143(3), 68
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI & SHRI JAGADISH
आदेश / O R D E R
PER JAGADISH, A.M :
Aforesaid appeal filed by the assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18 arises out of the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter "CIT(A)"] dated 20.06.2025 in the matter of assessment framed by the Assessing Officer [AO] u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter "the Act") on 12.12.2019. retail sales of gold and silver and filed its return of income on 25.10.2017 declaring total income of Rs. 52,38,410/-. In the assessment order, the A.O made an addition of Rs. 62,25,000/- towards cash deposits during the demonetization period and a further addition of Rs. 52,02,083/- u/s. 68 of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A), however, observed that the assessee had failed to adduce any documentary evidence in support of its contentions and accordingly dismissed the appeal as not maintainable.
The Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) submitted that the assessment order was passed ex-parte, and the Ld. CIT(A) also dismissed the appeal ex-parte without adjudicating the matter on merits. It was therefore prayed that, in the interest of justice, the assessee may be granted one more opportunity to substantiate its case before the Assessing Officer.
4 On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative (DR) supported the orders of the lower authorities.
We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. On perusal of the orders of the A.O as well as the R.D. Velli Maalihai :- 3 -: learned CIT(A), it is evident that both the orders have been passed ex- parte due to non-compliance on the part of the assessee. The contention of the Ld. AR is that the CIT(A) has not adjudicated the issue on merits. In our considered view, and in the interest of justice as well as keeping in mind the principles of natural justice, the assessee deserves one more opportunity to present its case. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for denovo assessment in accordance with law, after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is directed to appear before the A.O on the date fixed for hearing without fail and to furnish complete details in support of its claim for fresh adjudication.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.