Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee made cash deposits of Rs. 2,96,63,000/- in a bank account during FY 2011-12. The case was reopened under Section 147, and an addition of Rs. 1,73,13,000/- was made under Section 69A as unexplained cash deposits. The CIT(A) subsequently passed an ex-parte order against the assessee.
Held
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A)'s order was passed ex-parte without providing adequate notice for hearing and without deciding the case on merits. To ensure natural justice, the Tribunal remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, with due opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in passing an ex-parte order without affording proper opportunity of hearing and without adjudicating on the merits of the addition under Section 69A.
Sections Cited
143(3), 147, 148, 142(1), 69A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CHANDIGARH BENCH, ‘A’, CHANDIGARH
Before: SHRI LALIET KUMAR & SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY
Order Per Krinwant Sahay, AM : Appeal in this case has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 22.09.2023 passed by the Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the Assessment Year 2012-13.
Grounds of appeal are as under:
714-Chd-2024 Kala Singh, Yamunanagar 2 1. That the order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 by the learned Assessing Officer is against the law and facts of the case. 2 That the Learned AO has grossly erred in making addition of Rs. 1,73,13,000/-without considering the original bayana / agreement to sell, assessee having only one source of income being illiterate agriculturist and also passing reassessment order against the well settled law. 3 That the learned AO is not justified in passing the reassessment order without appreciating the facts and by brushing aside all the submissions of the assessee by making addition taxing the differential amount of bank deposits vis a vis cash received through bayana/ agreement to sell on the sale of agricultural land. 4 That the learned AO is not justified in not allowing the benefit of one of the sale deeds in the name of mother of assessee, particularly when all the cash receipts have been deposited in the account of the assessee herein 5 That the Id. AO has grossly erred in making addition of Rs. 1,73,13,000/- without considering the cash withdrawal from bank account so the addition made is wrong, unjustified and against the facts of the case 5 The assessee craves leave to add or alter grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.
714-Chd-2024 Kala Singh, Yamunanagar 3 3. Brief facts of the case as per the order of the ld. CIT(A) are as under:-
4.1 On the basis of AIR information that the assessee has made cash deposits of Rs. 2,96,63,000/- in the bank account, maintained with the Punjab National Bank during F.Y. 2011-12, the case was reopened u/s. 147 of the Act by issue of notice u/s. 148 of the Act on 29.03.2019 after obtaining the prior approval from the competent authority. Consequently, statutory notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act was issued and served on the assessee. 4.2 In response to the notice u/s. 148 of the Act, the assessee filed the return of income declaring income at Rs. 1,41,190/- plus agricultural income of Rs. 3,15,603/- on 14.11.2019. Accordingly, the re-assessment was completed in the case vide order u/s. 147 rws 143(3) of the Act dated 29.12.2019 assessing the income at Rs. 1,74,54,190/-after making certain additions of Rs. 1,73,13,000/- u/s. 69A of the Act being cash deposits from undisclosed sources. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant against this order u/s 143(3) rws 147 passed by the AO.
At the very outset, ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed this order ex- parte because of non-filing of any details / submissions
714-Chd-2024 Kala Singh, Yamunanagar 4 and non-appearance of the Assessee or its authorised representative before him.
The ld. counsel submitted that although notices were issued to the Assessee long back but before passing the order, there is no notice issued by the Ld. CIT(A) to the Assessee for hearing and accordingly without taking into account the details to be filed by the Assessee, the appellate order was passed. The ld. Counsel for the Assessee also submitted that in the fitness of things the matter may be remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
Per Contra, the ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below.
We have considered the facts brought on record by the ld. Counsel for the Assessee and we have also gone through the order passed by the ld. CIT(A). We find that although the Assessee did not get notice for the day for which the order was passed ex-parte, still then, the Ld. CIT(A) has not passed the order on merit on the basis of material available on record. Therefore, we are of this 714-Chd-2024 Kala Singh, Yamunanagar 5 considered view that in order to have natural justice for the Assessee and in the fitness of things the matter should be remanded back to CIT(A) for adjudication afresh. Accordingly, the case is remanded back to the CIT(A) for adjudication afresh on merit, in accordance with law, on affording due and adequate opportunity of hearing to the Assessee. The Assessee, no doubt, shall cooperate in the fresh proceedings before the CIT(A). All pleas available under the law shall remain so available to the assessee. Ordered accordingly. The appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 21.07.2025.