REENA SEHGAL,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 62(2), NEW DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back for a fresh hearing. The assessee was directed to present all facts, and the CIT(A) was instructed to provide an effective opportunity of being heard.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal challenged an ex-parte order by the CIT(A) regarding additions made to income for cash deposits. The assessee claimed they did not receive a notice for the hearing before the CIT(A).
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee was denied a reasonable opportunity of being heard by the CIT(A) due to non-receipt of notice. Whether the additions made by the AO for cash deposits were justified without proper representation.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DLEHI
Before: SMT. DIVA SINGH
ORDER The present appeal has been filed by the assessee, wherein correctness of the order dated 25.01.2019 of CIT(A)-38, New Delhi pertaining to 2010-11 assessment year is assailed on the following grounds:
“1. Based on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (appeals)-38, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘Learned CIT(A)’ under section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), is bad in law and void ab-initio. 2. Based on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned assessing officer has erred in making additions to 2 income amounting to Rs.16,70,000/- pertaining to cash deposit in Bank account. 3. Based on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause to produce additional evidences before the CIT(A).” 2. At the time of hearing an adjournment application was moved on behalf of the assessee. However, considering the material available on record, the adjournment request was withdrawn and the ld. AR, inviting attention to the impugned order, submitted that the assessee did not receive the notice for the date of hearing before the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). In view thereof, the assessee remained un- represented. Accordingly, it was his limited prayer that the order may be set aside to the file of CIT(A) in order to grant an effective opportunity of being heard.
3. Considering the material available on record, ld. Sr. DR did not oppose the request.
A perusal of the record shows that certain deposits in the bank account of the assessee were required to be addressed. For want of representation, the addition was made by the Assessing Officer by an order u/s. 144 read with section 147 of the Income-tax Act. Before the ld.
3 CIT(A) also, the assessee remained un-represented. In view thereof and in the interest of substantial justice, the impugned order is set aside to the file of ld. CIT(A) with the direction to pass a speaking order in accordance with law. The assessee is directed to place full facts before him, which the ld. CIT(A) shall consider at the time of hearing after giving the assessee a reasonable and effective opportunity of being heard. The assessee in his own interest is advised to make full and proper representation before the said authority and not to abuse the trust reposed.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
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
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Sahoo Supply Agency,Balasore vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs,New DelhiOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S Jyoti Consultants, Agrahat vs. Pr. Commissioner GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, BhubaneswarOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S. Sahoo Supply Agency vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And CustomsOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- Gopal Aromatic PVT. LTD., Cuttack vs. Union Of INDIAOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S Crs Builders Private Limited vs. Commissioner State Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 2 Nov 2026