CHINTAL SUNILBHAI PATEL,ANAND vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, ANAND

PDF · subscribers
ITA 55/AHD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 March 2025AY 2017-18Bench: DR. BRR KUMAR (Vice President), Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)7 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and noted that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte. The Tribunal held that the matter should be remanded back to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication on merits, ensuring natural justice for the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a farmer, did not file an income tax return for AY 2017-18. The Assessing Officer observed a cash deposit of Rs. 12,00,000/- during the demonetization period and made an addition of the same as unexplained deposits. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) order passed ex-parte without considering the merits of the case is sustainable. Whether the matter should be remanded for fresh adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 142(1),Section 133(6),Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: DR. BRR KUMAR & Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE

For Respondent: Shri Sudhakar Verma, Sr. DR
Hearing: 10.03.2025Pronounced: 20.03.2025

PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

This appeal is filed by the Assessee against order dated 12.12.2023, passed by the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the Assessment Year 2017-18.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

“1. The Learned CIT-Appeals, (NFAC) has erred in law on facts in dismissing the appeal. The same is bad in law and deleted now. 2. Your appellant prays to add, amend, alter, modify or delete any grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.”

3. The assessee is a Farmer. The assessee’s case was identified in “Cash Transactions, 2016” by the Income Tax Business application - Online Portal. As the assessee has not filed his return of income for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2017-18, notice under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued on 10.03.2018 Assessment Year: 2017 -18 Chintal Sunilbhai Patel vs. ITO Page 2 of 3 and duly served to the assessee. In response to the same, the assessee did not file his return of income. On verification of the data, the Assessing Officer observed that during the demonetisation period i.e. from 09.11.2016 to 30.12.2016 the assessee deposited total cash of Rs.12,00,000/- in his bank account maintained at Anand Mercantile Co-operative Bank Limited. Information under Section 133(6) of the Act was called from the Bank. Since the assessee has not given any explanation, the Assessing Officer passed the Assessment Order under Section 144 of the Act thereby making addition of Rs.12,00,000/- as unexplained deposits during the demonetisation period.

4.

Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

5.

At the time of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee, despite giving notice. After going through the records, it appears that there is a delay of 313 days in filing the present appeal for which the assessee has filed the affidavit for condonation of delay. Since the assessee is a Farmer and is not aware about the legal procedure and the explanation given in the affidavit dated 05.01.2025 appears to be sufficient and hence the delay is condoned.

6.

As regards the order of the CIT(A), the same is passed ex-parte without taking into account the merits of the case. Therefore, it will be appropriate to remand back this matter to the file of the CIT(A) for proper adjudication of the issues on merits. The assessee will be given opportunity of hearing by following the principles of natural justice. If the assessee did not appear before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) will take cognisance of the Assessment Order and pass the order on merit.

7.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open Court on this 20th March, 2025.

More judgments on Section 142(1)

All 17,244 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →