Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed three appeals against orders related to the Assessment Years 2016-17 & 2017-18. The appeals were dismissed by the CIT(A) for non-prosecution due to the assessee's non-compliance with notices seeking details about cash deposits. The assessee claimed the cash was withdrawn from their bank and firm capital during the demonetization period.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the primary adjudication of the grounds of appeal was not done by the CIT(A). In the interest of justice, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for a de-novo assessment, with a direction for the assessee to submit all relevant documents and comply with notices.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without deciding on merits, and whether the matter should be remanded for a fresh adjudication given the lack of proper appreciation of facts and procedural lapses.
Sections Cited
69A, 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER & 887/Ahd/2025 (Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18) SanjaySinh Mahida, The Income Tax Officer, Nr. Tekrabhag Ni Daheli, Vs. Ward-1(3)(1), Devavanta Sojitra, Petlad. Tala Deva, Talpad, Sojitra, Petlad-387340. [PAN :AUYPM3324 P] And I.T.A. No.845/Ahd/2025 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Hitendrasinh Mahida, The Assistant 1308 and 1309, Vs. Commissioner of Near Railway Crossing, Income Tax, Bhadran Road, Circle-1(3), Borsad, Vadodara. Dist. Anand, Ananad-388540. [PAN :AUYPM3325 N] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri A.K Khandelwal, AR Respondent by: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr DR Date of Hearing 06.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement 07.08.2025 O R D E R PER BENCH : Delay Condoned The captioned three appeals are filed by the Assessee against the separate orders dated 26.10.2023 & 22.12.2023 passed by the ITA No.844/Ahd/2025 with two others Sanjaysinh Mahida Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2016-17 - 2– Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre relating to the Assessment Years 2016-17 & 2017-18. The facts involved in these three appeals are identical, hence the matters were heard together and are being disposed of vide this common order for the sake of convenience. We will take ITA No.845/Ahd/2025 for AY 2017-18 as lead case for the purpose of adjudication.
ITA No.845/Ahd/2025 for AY 2017-18
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeals:
1. That the Hon'ble CIT(A) failed to provide adequate and effective opportunity of being heard and dismissed the appeal for non- prosecution and thus violated the principles of natural justice.
2. The Hon'ble CIT(A) did not decide the appeal on merits and totally relied upon the assessment order and thus decision is hot based on proper appreciation of facts. 3. On facts and circumstances of the case the Hon. CIT(A) has gravely erred in confirming addition of Rs.28,09,000/ under section 69A of income tax act, 1961 without understanding the true nature of transaction and also without properly appreciating the facts of this case. 4. On facts and circumstances of the case the Hon. CIT (A) ignored the fact that applicant has withdrawn cash from bank. capital from firm and the same were deposited during Demonetization period into bank accounts with SBI and Central Bank of India. Interestingly one of bank account is belong to partnership firm in which applicant is partner.
On going through the record, we find that the notices of hearing u/s.250 were issued by the Ld.CIT(A) on 16.01.2021, 21.08.2023, with two others Sanjaysinh Mahida Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2016-17 - 3– 17.10.2023, 17.11.2023, & 05.12.2023 requesting the assessee to submit certain details/clarification/ explanation regarding source of cash deposit. Since the assessee remained non-compliant with the notices issued and failed to submit the relevant documents before the Ld.CIT(A), the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. Before us the Ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed that, given an opportunity, due compliance will be made and all the details/clarification/explanation would be provided to the revenue authorities. Since the primary adjudication of ground of appeal has not been taken by Ld. CIT(A), in the interest of justice, the matter is remanded to the Ld.CIT(A) for conducting assessment de-novo. The assessee shall submit all the relevant documents and comply with the notices issued by the Revenue authorities without seeking any unnecessary adjournments.
ITA Nos. 844 & 887/Ahd/2025 for AYs 2016-17 & 2017-18.
The facts involved in these two appeals are identical to those in for A.Y. 2017-18, which we have decided in favour of the assessee for statistical purposes in the preceding paragraphs. Therefore, the decision taken in ITA No. 845/Ahd/2025 for A.Y. 2017-18 shall apply mutatis mutandis to ITA Nos. 844 & 887/Ahd/2025 for A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2017-18 as well. Accordingly, these two appeals of the assessee are also allowed for statistical purposes. with two others Sanjaysinh Mahida Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2016-17 - 4– 5. In the combined result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.