KHATRI HUNDHARAJ HOTCHAND HUF,PALANPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, PALANPUR, PALANPUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of delay without deciding on the merits. The assessee was not aware of online proceedings, leading to ex-parte assessment. The evidence filed by the assessee was not considered.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed their return of income for AY 2017-18, which was processed under Section 143(1). The case was reopened due to huge cash deposits during demonetization. The AO made an addition of Rs. 27,92,350/- as unexplained money under Section 69A.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation without considering the merits, and whether the assessee was deprived of natural justice.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE
(Assessment Year: 2017-18) Khatri Hundharaj Hotchand-HUF Vs. Income Tax Officer, Shivaji Market Amir Road, Ward-1, Panchratna Market Palanpur, Palanpur Gujarat-385001 [PAN No.AAHHK9730L] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Chetan Agrawal, A.R. Respondent by : Shri N.J. Vyas, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing 20.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement 02.04.2025 O R D E R The appeal filed by the assessee is against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”), National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short “NFAC”), Delhi on 26.12.2024 for A.Y. 2017-18.
The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:
1. Learned CIT(A) erred in law as well as on fact in dismissing appeal on the ground of limitation and not condoning delay of 246 days without deciding on merits.
3. The return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 was filed by the assessee on 01.11.2017 which was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. As per the information available with the Revenue Department, the assessee made huge cash transactions with the bank in respect of depositing the cash of Rs. 27,92,350/- in the Current Account of Dena Bank during the Khatri Hundharaj Hotchand HUF vs. ITO Asst. Year–2017-18 - 2 - demonetization period. Accordingly, the case was reopened and statutory notices were issued. Since the assessee has not filed any reply/detail in respect of notice under Section 148 of the Act, the AO made addition of Rs. 27,92,350/- as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Act and the tax is calculated as per the provision of Section 115BBE of the Act.
Being aggrieved by the assessment order the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
The Ld. A.R. submitted that the assessment order as well as the order of the CIT(A) is ex-parte and the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay which is ony 246 days. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee was not aware of online assessment proceedings and therefore, there was no compliance resulting in ex-parte assessment and addition. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the matter may be remanded back to the file of the AO for proper adjudication of the issues.
The Ld. D.R. relied upon the order of the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A).
Heard both the parties and perused all the relevant materials available on record. It is pertinent to note that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal only on the ground of delay in filing the appeal and has not commented anything on the merits of the case. Besides this the assessee’s evidence which was filed by the assessee was not taken on record. Therefore, it will be appropriated to remand back this matter to Khatri Hundharaj Hotchand HUF vs. ITO Asst. Year–2017-18 - 3 - the file of the AO for proper adjudication of the issues on merits. The assessee be given an opportunity of hearing with following principles of natural justice.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 02/04/2025
More judgments on Section 148
- 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
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- 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
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ganesh Trimbak Saraf And Another vs. The State Of Maharashtra And AnotherBombay · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S. Vajram Infra Material Industries vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Tyre Center vs. The Superintendent Of CGSTAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Monolith Resorts Private Limited vs. The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Sutlej Textiles And Industries Limited vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
