Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a non-filer, made cash deposits of Rs. 1,67,11,024/- in her bank account which the Assessing Officer treated as unexplained income. The assessee failed to provide sufficient explanation and documentary evidence, leading to an addition under Section 69A read with Section 115BBE. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte due to non-prosecution.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) ex-parte for non-prosecution, despite several notices. However, acknowledging the assessee's plea for one more opportunity to contest the case, the Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the CIT(A)'s file.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A) when the initial appeal was dismissed ex-parte due to non-prosecution.
Sections Cited
69A, 115BBE, 145(3), 147, 144B, 250, 142(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,’’B” JAIPUR
fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear : 2015-16 Ms.Shikha Ganeriwal cuke The ITO Vs. Kanaktala Path, In front of Shishu Niketan Ward 2(1) High School, P.O. & P.S. Bharalumukh Kota Guwahati 781 009 (Assam) LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkjla-@PAN/GIR No.: AJEPG 0689 E vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby :Shri Saurav Harsh, Advocate jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 23/07/2025 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement : 06 /08 /2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 16-10-2023, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ hereinafter referred to as (NFAC)/CIT(A) ] for the assessment year 2015- 16 raising therein following grounds of appeal.
1. That on the facts, in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has grossly erred in passing the ex-parte order and confirming the addition made by the Id. Assessing Officer.
MS. SHIKHA GANERIWAL VS ITO, WARD 2(1), KOTA 2.2. That the Ld. AO has grossly erred in treating the cash deposits of Rs. 1,67,11,924/- as unexplained money under section 69A r.ws. 115BBE out of recorded cash sales in audited cash book, on surmises and conjectures while brushing aside the documentary evidences whereas the source is fully explained and all entries are fully recorded in books of accounts and applications of said sections are bad-in-law and Id. CIT(Appeals) also erred in confirming the same without going through facts of the case. 3 3. That the Ld. AO did not invoke provisions of section 145(3) of the Act meaning thereby that Id. AO was satisfied about the correctness or completeness of books of accounts and method of accounting employed by the appellant. Thus the Ld. AO is wrong in not accepting the cash deposited out of declared cash sales and other receipts treating it as not verifiable despite recorded in books of accounts which were found correct and complete and Id. CIT(Appeals) also erred in confirming the same without going through facts of the case. 4 4. That the Ld. AO has grossly erred and seriously committed a mistake as the prescribed procedure was not followed while framing the reassessment, as the adjournment request of the assessee during the proceedings was completely ignored and hereby assessee denied the opportunity to submit reply against show cause notice which is against the principle of natural justice and Id. CIT(Appeals) also erred in confirming the same without going through facts of the case.
2.1 Apropos grounds of appeal
, it is noticed that the ld.CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order by dismissing the appeal of the assessee on account of non-prosecution of the same. The relevant observations as made by the ld. CIT(A) in his order is reproduced as under:-
4. Decision: 4.1 The grounds of appeal and assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 20.03.2023 have been perused carefully. At the outset it is worth mentioning that during the pendency of the appeal, appellant was issued various notices of hearing u/s. 250 of the Act dated 11.07.2023, 19.07.2023, 27.07.2023 & 06.10.2023. For all these hearing notices, appellant could not make any submission in spite of availing sufficient time and opportunities. From the fact of appellant's non-response to various notices, it is clear that apparently, appellant has no specific submissions to file to pursue the pending appeal. As appellant failed to avail the opportunities offered on various occasions from time to time, it is understood that appellant is not keen to pursue the appeal as per law and accordingly, appeal filed by the appellant is liable to be dismissed for non- MS. SHIKHA GANERIWAL VS ITO, WARD 2(1), KOTA prosecution by the appellant. The following citations/decisions of Hon'ble Adjudicating Authorities clearly envisage for dismissal of appellant's appeal for appellant's failure to prosecute/pursue the pending appeal in spite of availing sufficient time and opportunities and accordingly, is not maintainable. The relevant citations are briefed as under for placing reliance to adduce appellant's non- prosecution of appeal as not maintainable.
In the case of CIT Vs. B.N. Bhattachargee& Another 118 ITR 461 (relevant pages 477 and 478) wherein their Lordships have held that ‘’the appeal does not mean merely filing of appeal but effectively pursuing it.’’ 2. In the case of Estate of Late Tukoji Rao Holker Vs. CWT 223 IR 480 (MP) while dismissing the reference made at the instance of assessee in default made following observations in their order ‘’if the party at whose instance the reference is made fails to appear at the hearing, or fails in taking steps for preparation of the paper books so as to enable hearing of the reference, this court is not bound to answer the reference"
In the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Del). The appeal filed by the revenue before the Tribunal which was fixed for hearing but on the date of hearing nobody represented neither the revenue applicant nor any communication for adjournment was received. There was no communication or information as to why revenue choose to remain absent on that date. The Hon'ble Tribunal laid down the principle that on the basis of inherent power the appeal filed by the appellant can be treated as un-admitted. 4.1.1 Keeping in view the above facts of appellant's non-prosecution of this pending appeal and also placing reliance on above citations, appellant's appeal is to be treated as not maintainable. The approach of the assessee amply shows that she is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Therefore, having considered the entire facts of the case and evidence available on record, the appeal so filed is dismissed. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.’’ 5.
2.2 During the course of hearing, the ld.AR of the assessee prayed that one more chance may be provided to the assessee to contest the case before the ld. CIT(A) as the ld. CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order by confirming the action of the AO and without going through the facts of the MS. SHIKHA GANERIWAL VS ITO, WARD 2(1), KOTA case. The ld. AR of the assessee fairly admitted that the three notices being issued in July 2023 and one notice issue in October 6, 2023 were remained unnoticed and the order was passed on 16.10.2023 and therefore, the sufficient opportunity was not given to the assessee. 2.3 On the other hand, the ld.DR supported the orders of the lower authorities. 2.4 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The facts in brief are that the assessee is an individual and has not filed her return of income for the year under consideration. The Income Tax Department (i.e. the AO) observed from the available information that the assessee is a non-filer and made cash deposits of Rs.1,67,11,024/- in the bank which remained unexplained. The AO issued notices u/s 142(1) of the Act seeking details and documentary evidencewith regard to source of cash deposits made by the assessee against which reply had been submitted by the assessee on 25-01-2023 and 6-02-2023 and the same were examined by the AO. The AO thus observed that the assessee had failed to explain the nature and source of cash deposits and credits amounting to Rs.1,67,11,024/- in her bank account with Indian OveerseasBank, with valid explanation and supporting documentary evidences and thus he made an addition of Rs.1,67,11,024/- in the hands MS. SHIKHA GANERIWAL VS ITO, WARD 2(1), KOTA of the assessee u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. In first appeal, the ld.CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the AO for the reason that the assessee did not pursue the appeal filed before the ld. CIT(A)in spite of providing sufficient opportunities and he passed an ex-parte order. To this effect, the ld. AR of the assessee prayed that he is deprived off availing of opportunity to contest the case before the ld. CIT(A) and the ld.CIT(A) without going through the facts of the case confirmed the action of the AO in spite of adducing the documents concerning the addition of Rs.1,67,11,024/- u/s 69A before the AO. Hence, the assessee may be provided with one more chance to contest the case before the ld.CIT(A) and adduce the documents concerning the addition of Rs.1,67,11,024/- u/s 69A so that the apple of discord does not arise. In view of the submissions and facts of the case, the Bench feels that the assessee may be provided one more opportunity to contest the case before the ld. CITA).However, the assessee will not seek any adjournment on frivolous ground and remain cooperative during the course of proceedings. Thus the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 2.5 Before parting, we may make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) shall in no way be construed as MS. SHIKHA GANERIWAL VS ITO, WARD 2(1), KOTA having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by ld. CIT(A) independently in accordance with law. 3.0 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 06 / 08/2025.
Sd/- Sd/- ¼Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh ½ ¼jkBksM deys'kt;UrHkkbZ ½ (DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI) (Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai) U;kf;dlnL;@Judicial Member ys[kklnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 06/08/2025 *Mishra आदेश की प्रतिलिपिअग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू 1. The Appellant- Ms. Shikha Ganeriwal ,Gauhati 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The ITO, Ward 2(1), Kota 3. vk;djvk;qDr@ Theld CIT 4. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत 5. xkMZQkbZy@ Guard File ( By order,
सहायकपंजीकार@Aेेजज. त्महपेजतंत