MANMOHAN SINGH,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), LUDHIANA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the assessee faced medical issues and sought condonation for a delay in filing the appeal. Considering the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal accepted the assessee's prayer, set aside the impugned order, and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal for AY 2018-19 arose from an order of the CIT(A) which upheld an assessment framed by the AO on a best judgment basis. The assessment involved an addition of Rs. 40.31 Lacs on account of a cash deposit for which the assessee lacked documentary evidence.
What were the issues?
Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned due to medical reasons, and whether the assessee should be given an opportunity to prove the source of cash deposit before the CIT(A).
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, CHANDIGARH
आदेश / O R D E R
Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2018- 19 arises out of an order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Ludhiana [CIT(A)] dated 28-02-2025 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] on best judgment basis u/s 147 read with section 144 of the Act on 29-03-2023. The registry has noted delay of 117 days, the condonation of which has been sought by Ld. AR on the strength of condonation petition which is accompanied by an affidavit of the assessee. Considering the fact that the assessee faced medical issues near to relevant point of time, I admit the appeal and proceed with adjudication of the same on merits.
In the assessment order, Ld. AO made addition of cash deposit of Rs.40.31 Lacs for want of any documentary evidences from the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for the same very reasons. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before Tribunal. The Ld. AR raised pertinent legal issues and also assailed impugned addition on merits. It has been stated that the assessee is in a position to substantiate the sources of cash deposit. The Ld. Sr. DR has pleaded for dismissal of the appeal.
Keeping in mind the principles of natural justice, I deem it fit to accept the prayer of Ld. AR. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication with a direction to the assessee to plead and prove its case forthwith. All the issues are kept open.
The appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 02nd December, 2025.
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 →- Sureshchandra Moolchand Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Larsen And Toubro Limited vs. Joint Commissioner Of Central GST And Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- T C Global INDIA Private Limited vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central GST, North DelhiDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Kamlasana Impex Private Limited vs. Director General Of GST Intelligence (Hq) Delhi) & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Ritu Gautam Proprietor Of Ms Heritage International vs. Additional Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax Appeals Ii Delhi & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026