NARAYANPET ABDULLA,ADONI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD -1, ADONI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities passed ex-parte orders without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee, especially considering the Covid-19 pandemic. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal concerns the assessment year 2017-18, where deposits made during the demonetization period were treated as income under Sections 69A and 68 of the IT Act. The assessee claimed these deposits represented sale proceeds from egg sales.
What were the issues?
Whether the lower authorities erred in passing ex-parte orders without affording sufficient opportunity to the assessee, and whether deposits during demonetization were correctly treated as unexplained income.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘ A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad
Before: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu
Assessment Year: 2017-18 Narayanpet Abdulla, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Adoni – 518301. Ward – 1, PAN : AKVPA5343D. Adoni. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Mrs. S. Sandhya. Revenue by: Shri T. Sunil Goutam. Date of hearing: 19.04.2022 Date of pronouncement: 19.04.2022 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. This appeal of assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 29.12.2021 for the AY. 2017-18 on the following grounds : “
1. The order of the learned CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, is errenoues both on facts and in law
2. The learned CIT(A) erred in deciding the appeal without providing opportunity to the appellant.
3. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in treating the deposits made during the Demonetization period of Rs.30,32,000/- as the income of the appellant assessable u/s 69A of the I.T. Act.
4. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.30,32,000/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 68 of the I.T.
Act without considering the fact that the said amount represents the sale price received on sale of eggs during the demonetization period. 5. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.27,08,000/- on the ground that it represents the unexplained expenditure.”
At the outset, it was submitted by the ld.AR that the lower authorities have passed ex-parte order during the Covid time and on account of Covid, the assessee was not able to participate in the proceedings before the lower authorities’ proceedings. It was submitted by the ld.AR that the matter may be remitted back to the Assessing Officer for denovo passing of the assessment order. The Ld.AR had drawn our attention to paragraph 4.1 of the impugned order, wherein it was mentioned as under:- “4.1 During the appellate proceedings, various notices under section 250 of the Act were issued through ITBA portal to the appellant by dated 04.02.2020, 23.12.2020 and 08.12.2021. It has been noted from the appeal record that the appellant was given opportunity to present its appeal by way of written submission and supporting documents/ evidences. However the assessee failed to comply with any reply/submission. The appellant has not made any written submission and has only furnished copy of the assessment order, grounds of pale in the statement of facts in form No. 35. In view of the above the appeal is decided on the basis of the fact on material on record.”
Per contra, the ld.DR has not raised any objection for remanding the matter back to the file of lower authorities. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties 4. and perused the material available on record and also the order passed by the lower authorities. As the assessment order as well as the appellate order passed ex parte, therefore, in our view, the ends of justice will be met if the matter may be sent back to the file of Assessing Officer with a direction to decide the issue after considering the documents available on record and affording the opportunities of hearing to the assessee in accordance with the law. 5. The assessee shall be at liberty to file documents, if any, as required for proving his case and the Assessing Officer shall consider the evidences, if any, filed by the assessee. Needless to say, the Assessing Officer shall examine those documents / evidence filed by the assessee and also the other documents available on record. After considering the documents filed by the assessee and the submissions made by the assessee, the Assessing Officer shall pass a detailed speaking order dealing with the contentions of the assessee. We have not adjudicated the other grounds on merits as we are setting aside the orders passed by the lower authorities to the file of Assessing Officer for denovo assessment. Needless to say, we have not adjudicated any other ground, all the grounds are required to be adjudicated by the CIT(Appeals) in the remand proceedings. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 19th April, 2022.
More judgments on Section 69A
- Vishal Kumar Patel(HUF), Raipur vs DCIT, Circle-1(1), RaipurITA 595/RPR/2026[2017-18]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- 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
- Ashok Singh, Jaipur vs ACIT, Circle-2 Jaipur, JaipurITA 1540/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Neepaben Sunnybhai Motwani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, RajkotITA 875/RJT/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sutlej Textiles And Industries Limited vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S. Ut Corp vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- Sunrise Engineering vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Kalra Traders vs. Union Of INDIAUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Ms Isoft vs. The Commissioner State TaxUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026