DHANSHREE SOFTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The ITAT noted that the CIT(A) had not decided the appeal on merits. Consequently, the ITAT remitted the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A) with directions to decide the appeal afresh on merits, after granting the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.
What were the facts?
The assessee company had unexplained credit entries of Rs. 71,41,900/- in its bank account, leading the AO to make an addition under Section 144B via an ex-parte order. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the subsequent appeal on account of non-prosecution, without addressing the merits of the case.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing an appeal for non-prosecution without considering the merits of the addition made under Section 144B, and if the case should be remanded for fresh adjudication.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “B”, NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, & SHRI VIMAL KUMAR
This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the Order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment year 2018-19.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company has received unexplained credit entries of Rs. 71,41,900/- in its bank account during the financial year 2017-18 whereas on perusal of income tax return filed for AY 2017-18 a& 2018-19, it was noted that assessee company has shown income of Rs. NIL and cash and cash equivalent at Rs. 26,700/- in previous year which does not support huge transaction made during the year. AO noted that assessee has failed to furnish the documentary evidence in respect of sources of these deposits with Equitas Bank, hence, the said credit entries with bank amounting to Rs. 71,41,900/- remain unexplained and deserve to be added in to the total income of the assessee company. Hence, AO added the same in the hands of the assessee by passing an exparte order u/s. 144B of the Act. Upon assessee’s appeal, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on account of non-prosecution. Against the aforesaid action of the Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before us.
At the outset, it is submitted by the Ld. AR that in this case AO has passed the exparte order u/s 144B of the Act by not providing any information or tangible material, till the end of the reassessment proceedings. He further submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has sustained the addition without considering the fact that AO has passed the order without considering the reply of the assessee and dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of non-prosecution and not passed the order on the merits of the case. Hence, he requested that matter may be remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, after giving
2 | P a g e adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the appeal on merits of the case, for which Ld. DR has no objection.
We have heard both the parties and perused the records. In view of the aforesaid factual matrix, we find considerable cogency in the aforesaid contention of the Ld. AR for the assessee, therefore, in our considered view interest of justice will be served, if the issues are remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A), with the directions to decide the same afresh on merits of the case, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We hold and direct accordingly.
More judgments on Section 144B
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Mohammed Javed Bhati, Sikar vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, SikarITA 994/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Haresh Sharma, Ahmedabad vs ITO, Ward 5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2125/AHD/2026[2019-2020]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-2020
- Haresh Sharma, Ahmedabad vs ITO, Ward 5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2124/AHD/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Akshaya Consortium vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Dipanshu Aggarwal vs. Director General Of GST IntelligenceDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Dezinetree Projects PVT. LTD. vs. Spokes Digital Inc And AnrDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Jaydeep Jayantilal Hudaka vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 28 Oct 2026
- Commissioner/Additional Commissioner Of Central Tax vs. M/S INDIA Agro Exports Private LimitedKarnataka · 28 Oct 2026