MAULIK ASHOKKUMAR SHAH,GODHRA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, GODHRA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to respond to notices from the CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer. However, considering principles of natural justice, the Tribunal granted the assessee one final opportunity.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed its return of income declaring Rs. 3,77,650/-. During demonetization, the assessee deposited Rs. 26,50,000/- in cash. The Assessing Officer treated this deposit as unexplained income. The CIT(A) upheld this addition through an ex-parte order.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) order passed ex-parte without considering the assessee's submissions is sustainable and whether the appeal can be restored for de novo assessment.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 250,Section 147,Section 144B,Section 68,Section 115BBE,Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C,Section 234D,Section 271AAC
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE
O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:-
The captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 15.03.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "CIT(A)" for short), passed u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeals:
“1. Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in passing the impugned order ex-parte. 2. Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in not adjudicating anything on the validity of reopening and thus confirming the action of AO in assuming the jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act. Maulik Ashokkumar Shah Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2017-18 - 2–
3. The Learned CIT(A) erred in law by failing to consider that the Ld. AO passed the order without duly considering the relevant facts and in violation of the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the impugned order is liable to be quashed.
4. The Learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts of the case in not appreciating that AO did not adhere to the prescribed procedure for faceless assessment as mandated under Section 144B of the Act.
The Ld. CIT(Appeal) ought to consider the Facts, records available on the face of record before passing the order but the Ld. CIT(Appeal) Fails to consider the same and passed the order.
7. The Ld. CIT(Appeal) ought to consider the Circular Instruction No. 03/2017 dated 21-02-2017 but fails to consider it and passed the order.
The learned CIT(Appeal) has erred in law by addition of Rs. 26,50,000/- as an unexplained credit u/s 68 of the Act and assessed the income 115BBE of the act-Tax Effect 26,50,000/-.
The Ld. CIT (Appeal) has erred in law by passing the order for levied of interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C ,234D of the Act.
The Ld. CIT(Appeal) has erred in law by Intimating to impose the penalty u/s 271AAC of the Income tax Act.”
In the present case, the assessee is stated to be engaged in operating a retail business dealing in various types of mobile phones and accessories. The assessee filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 03.11.2017, declaring a total income of Rs.3,77,650/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had deposited a sum of Rs.26,50,000/- in cash into his bank account maintained with The Godhra City Co-operative Bank Ltd. during the period of demonetization, i.e. from 09.11.2016 to 31.12.2016. Since the assessee failed to satisfactorily explain the source of the said cash deposit with supporting evidence, the Assessing Officer treated the same as unexplained and added it Maulik Ashokkumar Shah Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2017-18 - 3– to the assessee’s income under relevant provisions of the Act. This addition was subsequently upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) by way of an ex-parte order dated 15.03.2025.
Upon perusal of the record, we find that several notices u/s 250 of the Act were issued to the assessee on 11.07.2024, 02.01.2025, 21.02.2025, and 08.03.2025, directing the assessee to submit necessary documents, submissions, and clarifications in respect of the cash deposits made during the demonetization period. However, the assessee failed to respond to any of these notices, which led to the dismissal of the appeal by the Ld. CIT(A) through an ex-parte order.
5. Subsequently, the assessee filed an affidavit dated 08.07.2025 before the Tribunal stating that due to negligence on the part of the erstwhile consultant, no steps were taken to file submissions or represent the assessee’s case before the appellate authority. It was further submitted that by the time a new consultant was appointed and had the opportunity to examine the records, the notice dated 08.03.2025 had already lapsed, resulting in the ex-parte adjudication of the appeal. The assessee contended that the default in appearance was inadvertent and solely attributable to the inaction of the earlier consultant. A prayer was made before the Tribunal to afford another opportunity, assuring full cooperation and submission of all necessary explanations and documents before the revenue authorities.
We also observe from the record that the assessee did not provide a satisfactory explanation before the Assessing Officer either. However, considering the principles of natural justice and in the interest of fair play, we are of the view that the assessee deserves one final opportunity to present its Maulik Ashokkumar Shah Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2017-18 - 4– case. Accordingly, the matter is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment. The assessee shall comply with the notices issued by the authorities from time to time without seeking unnecessary adjournments.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Mahaveer Ispat Traders vs. Principal Commissioner Dgst Delhi Department Of Trade And Taxes Gnctd & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Modern Engineers And Contractors vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- K Madhusudan Reddy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Sandeep Ranjan Rout vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Gagan Bihari Rout@Gagan Rout vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
