COMMITTEE KHUDDAMIN DARGHJAT HADDE KALAN KHULTABAD,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, EXEMPTION, WARD-AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the assessment and first appellate orders were passed ex-parte due to the assessee's non-participation, as hearing notices were allegedly sent to old committee members' email IDs. The assessee was granted another opportunity for adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a religious charitable body, failed to respond to notices issued by the Assessing Officer regarding cash deposits made during demonetization. Consequently, the Assessing Officer treated a sum of Rs.37,56,921/- as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Act.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee was denied a reasonable opportunity of being heard, leading to ex-parte orders, and if the matter should be remanded for fresh adjudication.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 250,Section 144,Section 142(1),Section 133(6),Section 69A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “SMC”, PUNE
Before: DR.MANISH BORAD
Assessee by : Shri Suhas Bora Revenue by : Shri Vinod Pawar Date of hearing : 26.12.2024 Date of pronouncement : 08.01.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :
The captioned appeal pertaining to Assessment Year 2017- 18 at the instance of assessee is directed against the order dated 20.06.2024 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as
Facts in brief are that the assessee is stated to be a Religious Public Charitable body and its income is below the financial deficit and is not chargeable to tax. Based on the information that the assessee has deposited cash of Rs.15,91,732/- during demonetization period in its bank accounts maintained with Bombay Mercantile Cooperative Bank Ltd. Aurangabad followed by validly serving of statutory notices, the assessee was called upon to furnish financial statements, Income and Expenditure Account, Balance Sheet, Bank Account Statement etc. There was no compliance by the assessee to the notices issued u/s.142(1)/133(6) of the Act as well as to the show cause notices issued by the Assessing Authority. Based on the bank account statements provided by the bank, ld. AO found that there are total credit entries of Rs.20,95,879/- and Rs.16,61,042/- in the entire financial year. In the event of failure of the assessee to submit its reply explaining the source and nature of the credits, ld. AO treated the sum of credits aggregating to Rs.37,56,921/- as unexplained money of assessee u/s.69A of the Act.
Now the aggrieved assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
During the course of present hearing, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the notices were sent on email ids pertaining to the old committee members of the assessee who did not inform the assessee and therefore the assessee was unaware of the proceedings which went against him. Affidavit to this effect has been placed on record. Given an opportunity, the assessee is in a position to substantiate the alleged cash credits. It is therefore prayed that in the interest of justice the matter may be remitted to the file of Jurisdictional Assessing Officer.
On the other hand, ld. Departmental Representative supported the orders of the lower authorities.
I have heard the rival submissions and perused the record placed before me. A mere perusal of the orders of the lower authorities would reveal that the Assessment Order as well as the First Appellate order were passed exparte owing to non- participation of the assessee. It is the contention of the assessee that hearing notices were sent on the email ids of the old committee members and the assessee was unaware of the Committee Khuddamin Darghjat Hadde Kalan Kultabad proceedings which led to passing of exparte orders. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances prevailing in the instant case, I am of the opinion that assessee deserves one more opportunity to meet the ends of justice. In view thereof, finding of ld.CIT(A) is set aside and the issue on merits is being remitted to the file ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication to be carried out after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also 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. Effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee on merits are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on this 08th day of January, 2025.
More judgments on Section 142(1)
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Subhash Chand Saini, Jaipur vs ITO Ward, Behror, BherorITA 36/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Venish Vinodray Lalani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, MorbiITA 197/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Gaurav Jiteshbhai Joshi, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1000/RJT/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S New Sana Brick Field vs. Union Of INDIA And 4 OthersAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Vinay Singh vs. Union Of INDIAAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Aaradhyam Infrabuilders PVT LTD vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026