Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, proprietor of Soni Electronics, filed an ITR for AY 2017-18. The AO made an addition under Section 143(3) for Specified Bank Notes deposited during demonetization. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal for non-prosecution due to repeated non-appearance and lack of submissions.
Held
The Tribunal set aside the Ld. CIT(A)'s order, remanding the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The AO is directed to provide a fresh opportunity of hearing to the assessee to explain the source of SBN deposits, with the assessee directed to cooperate. The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
Key Issues
The key legal issues were the dismissal of the appeal by Ld. CIT(A) for non-prosecution and the justification of the addition under Section 69 related to SBN deposits during demonetization.
Sections Cited
250, 143(3), 69
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DIVISION BENCH, ‘B’ CHANDIGARH
Before: SHRI LALIET KUMAR & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL
This appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Addl/JCIT (A) Bhopal, dated 24/02/2025. The impugned order was passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2017-18.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :
1. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) is not justified in dismissing the appeal. The order has been passed by the Ld. Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals) without giving ITA 1028/CHD/2025 A.Y. 2017-18 2 opportunity of being heard to the appellant and as such the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
2. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in upholding the addition of Rs. 577500/- made under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The said addition is absolutely illegal and the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
That the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is bad in law and facts.
Brief Facts of the Case
3. The appellant is an individual and the proprietor of M/S Soni Electronics, serving as a distributor of Airtel prepaid recharges under the Airtel brand. For the Assessment Year 2017-18, the appellant filed a return of income on 31/03/2018, declaring an income of Rs. 2,63,530/-. The case was selected for scrutiny, and the Assessing Officer (AO) passed an order under section 143(3) on 13/12/2019. The AO made an addition to the income on account of Specified Bank Notes (SBNs) deposited during the demonetization period.
Proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A)
The assessee challenged the addition before the Ld. CIT(A)14. The record indicates that the Ld. CIT(A) issued several notices of hearing between January 2021 and January 2025. However, the appellant did not furnish written submissions or documents during those proceedings. Consequently, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution, citing that the appellant showed no interest in pursuing the matter.
ITA 1028/CHD/2025 A.Y. 2017-18 3 Submissions of the Authorized Representative (AR) for the Assessee
The Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that the non-appearance before the Ld. CIT(A) was not intentional but due to circumstances beyond the control of the assessee. It was argued that the assessee is a small distributor and the addition made on account of SBNs has caused undue hardship. The Ld. AR prayed that in the interest of justice, the matter should be restored to provide a final opportunity to the assessee to explain the source of cash deposits with supporting evidence.
Submissions of the Departmental Representative (DR) for the Revenue
The Ld. DR, on the other hand, strongly supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A). He pointed out that the Ld. CIT(A) had given more than four opportunities to the assessee, none of which were utilized. The Ld. DR contended that the assessee was negligent in pursuing the appeal and, therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) was perfectly justified in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution based on established judicial precedents.
We have heard the matter and perused the material on record. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal primarily due to the non-appearance of the assessee and a lack of written submissions.
7.1 While the Ld. CIT(A) noted repeated failures to comply with notices; it is a well-established principle that an appeal should ideally be decided on its merits rather than being dismissed summarily for non-prosecution. The substantive issue in this case concerns the addition of SBN deposits, which requires verification of the assessee's business records and cash flow.
ITA 1028/CHD/2025 A.Y. 2017-18 4 7.2 In the interest of substantial justice and to provide the assessee with a fair opportunity to explain the source of the SBN deposits, we find it fit to restore the matter for fresh consideration.
Conclusion :
The order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 24/02/2025 is hereby set aside.
The matter is remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) for a fresh assessment. The AO is directed to provide the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard and to produce necessary evidence regarding the SBN deposits. The assessee is directed to cooperate fully with the assessment proceedings and comply with the statutory notices issued by the AO.
Result :
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 29th December,2025.