SHABBIRAHMAD MAHAMADHANIF MULLA,A/P KHANDAL, TAL GADHINGLAJ, KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOLHAPUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal observed that no fair opportunity of hearing was granted to the assessee by the lower authorities. Therefore, to provide one more opportunity and in the larger interest of justice, the issues were remitted to the file of the CIT(A) for necessary adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee, an individual, did not file an income tax return for AY 2017-18. Information was received about a cash deposit of Rs. 18,37,000/- in two bank accounts during the demonetization period. The Assessing Officer made a best judgment assessment u/s.144 for unexplained money u/s.69A as the assessee failed to appear.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee was granted a fair opportunity of hearing by the lower authorities? Whether the case should be remitted to the CIT(A) 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, PUNE BENCHES “SMC”, PUNE
Before: DR.MANISH BORAD
आदेश / ORDER
PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :
This appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to the assessment year 2017-18 is directed against the order dated 06.03.2025 of Addl/JCIT(A)-2, Chennai passed u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) arising out of the Assessment Order dated 27.12.2019 passed u/s.144 of the Act.
Based on the statement of facts and grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, I notice that impugned order in the instant appeal is exparte and no fair opportunity of hearing has been granted by ld.CIT(A) and prayer made to restore the matter to the file of ld.CIT(A) so that the sources of alleged cash deposit can be explained. It is further submitted that assessee is working as a bank correspondent and the alleged sum has been deposited during the demonetization period on behalf of various customers. Ld. Departmental Representative raised no objection if issues raised are restored to ld.CIT(A).
3. I have heard the rival contentions and perused the records placed before me. I observe that the assessee is an individual and did not file return of income for the year under appeal. During the demonetization period announced from 09.11.2016 to 30.12.2016, Ld. Assessing Officer received information about the deposit of cash of Rs.18,37,000/- in two bank accounts held with Bank of Maharashtra, Kasba Nool Branch. Though valid notices were issued and served upon the assessee, assessee failed to appear before the Assessing Officer resulting into culmination of best judgment assessment u/s.144 of the Act and making addition of Rs.18,37,000/- for unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act. Further appeal before ld.CIT(A) brought no good result as again there was no representation on behalf of the assessee.
4. I however in the larger interest of justice and being fair to both the parties deem it appropriate to afford one more opportunity to the assessee and remit the issues raised before me on merits to the file of ld.CIT(A) for necessary adjudication. Needless to mention that ld.CIT(A) shall pass a speaking order as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Assessee is directed to provide correct email id and contact detail to the department for receiving the notices from ITBA portal. Assessee is further directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause, failing which the ld.CIT(A) shall be free to proceed in accordance with law.
Findings of ld.CIT(A) is set aside and effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on this 27th day of June, 2025.
More judgments on Section 69A
- Vishal Kumar Patel(HUF), Raipur vs DCIT, Circle-1(1), RaipurITA 595/RPR/2026[2017-18]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Ashok Singh, Jaipur vs ACIT, Circle-2 Jaipur, JaipurITA 1540/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Neepaben Sunnybhai Motwani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, RajkotITA 875/RJT/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S A2Z Infra Engineering LTD vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026
- Kundan Patel vs. State Bank Of INDIAMadhya Pradesh · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Pacific Export vs. The State Of Madhya PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Kashiram Fuels Lole Propritorship Firm Through Proprietor Swati vs. Bank Of INDIAMadhya Pradesh · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S South INDIA Trading Company vs. Additional Commissioner Adjudication CGST Delhi North & Anr.Delhi · 13 Oct 2026
