Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessment of the assessee for A.Y. 2012-13 was reopened under Sections 147/148, leading to an addition of Rs. 71,53,300 as unexplained investment under Section 68. The CIT(A) confirmed the Assessing Officer's action and dismissed the assessee's appeal ex parte due to non-furnishing of details regarding cash deposits. No one appeared for the assessee before the ITAT.
Held
Observing that the primary adjudication was ex parte and the matter required proper consideration, the Tribunal restored the case to the CIT(A) for a de novo adjudication. The assessee was directed to furnish all relevant documents and comply with notices without seeking unnecessary adjournments.
Key Issues
The key issues were the validity of assessment reopening and addition of unexplained investment, and whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming an ex-parte order without providing adequate opportunity of hearing.
Sections Cited
147, 148, 68, 274, 271(1)(c)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:-
This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the appellate order dated 07.07.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, relating to the Assessment Year 2012-13.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Assessing Officer has erred in reopening the assessment u/s.147 of the act and issuing notice u/s.148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in making huge addition of Asst. Year : 2012-13 - 2– Rs.71,53,300/- is treated as unexplained investment u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in not considering and accepting the typical facts of assesse as regards to his capacity of earning the amount.
4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in ought to have granted deduction of the amount added in case of Shantilal A Mehta of Rs.71,53,300/-.
5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in not considering normally the departmental in respect of bank a/c, normally the departmental has accepted the position of first account holder is the main person of the bank account and accordingly provision of TDS etc. applies to the first name holder and therefore no addition could be made in this case. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has not offered adequate opportunities to hear the case and passed ex-parte order and hence the case may please be set aside and restored back to the CIT(A) or AO.
7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Assessing Officer has erred in initiated penalty proceedings u/s.274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
8. It is therefore prayed that the above addition may please be deleted as learned members of the tribunal may deem it proper.
9. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and/or withdraw any ground or grounds of appeal either before or during the course of hearing of the appeal.
3. On perusal of the records, it is observed that the assessee was afforded opportunities of hearing to furnish details, clarifications, and explanations to substantiate the source of cash deposits. However, assessee failed to furnish the substantial details or explanations before Asst. Year : 2012-13 - 3– the Ld. CIT(A). Consequently, the Ld. CIT(A), based on the material available on record, upheld the action of the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal ex parte. At the time of hearing before us, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Since the primary adjudication of the matter has not been carried out, we deem it appropriate, in the interest of justice, to restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The assessee is directed to furnish all relevant documents, evidences, and bank details before the Revenue authorities and to comply with the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) without seeking unnecessary adjournments
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.