ASHOK KUMAR TYAGI,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO WARD-1(1), GHAZIABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to present their case. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the matter afresh after considering the assessee's submissions.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings against the assessee for AY 2010-11 based on unexplained cash deposits of Rs. 52,40,000. The assessee failed to provide satisfactory explanations or appear before the CIT(A), leading to an ex parte confirmation of an addition of Rs. 17,90,000.
What were the issues?
The validity of reassessment proceedings and the addition of unexplained cash deposits were challenged. The assessee's failure to appear before the lower appellate authority led to an ex parte order.
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 DELHI
Before: SHRI R.K. PANDA
BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ashok Kumar Tyagi, Vs. ITO, C/o Sanjeev Anand & Associates, Ward-1(1), 77, Navyug Market, Ghaziabad. Ghaziabad. PAN: AQFPT8388P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Sumit Gupta, FCA Revenue by : Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 29.07.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 01.08.2019 ORDER
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the ex parte order dated 18.12.2018 of the CIT(A), Ghaziabad, relating to Assessment Year 2010-11.
The assessee in its various grounds of appeal has challenged the order of the CIT(A) in upholding the validity of the reassessment proceedings as well as sustaining the addition of Rs.17,90,000/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 69 of the IT Act.
Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual. The Assessing Officer, on the basis of the information received that the assessee has made cash deposit of Rs.52,40,000/- during the financial year 2009-10 relating to assessment year 2010-11, issued a notice to the assessee to verify the source of such deposit. Since the assessee did not file any reply nor filed the bank account, the Assessing Officer issued another notice to the assessee to explain the source. He further noted that the assessee has not filed the return of income for the impugned assessment year. He, therefore, issued notice u/s 148 after reopening the case u/s 147 by recording reasons. He also issued statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 143(1). The assessee, in response to the notice u/s 148, filed the return of income declaring total income at Rs.8,720/- on 11th September, 2011. The Assessing Officer, during the course of assessment proceedings, confronted the deposits made in the bank account. After considering the submissions made by the assessee from time to time, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.17,90,000/- u/s 69 of the IT Act being the unexplained cash deposit in the bank account. Since none appeared before the CIT(A) despite service of notice, the ld.CIT(A), vide ex parte order passed by him, confirmed the addition so made.
Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
I have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the material available on record. I find the Assessing Officer in the instant case, made addition of Rs.17,90,000/- u/s 69 of the IT Act being the unexplained cash deposit in the bank account maintained by the assessee. I find due to non-appearance of the assessee before the CIT(A) despite a number of opportunities granted, the ld.CIT(A), vide ex parte order passed by her, upheld the addition so made by the Assessing Officer. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, I deem it appropriate to restore the issue to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate his case and decide the issue as per fact and law. The assessee is also hereby directed to appear before the CIT(A) and substantiate his case, failing which, the ld.CIT(A) is at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. I hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. The decision was pronounced in the open court on 01.08.2019.
More judgments on Section 69
- Azure Knowledge Corporation Private… vs The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), AhmedabadITA 2013/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Naresh Chandra Khattar, Agra vs ITO Ward-1(1)(2), AgraITA 475/AGR/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Ranchhodbhai Kurjibhai Kakadiya, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 553/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Gorantla Rahul Kumar, Visakhapatnam vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 670/VIZ/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Gorantla Rahul Kumar, Visakhapatnam vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 669/VIZ/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Mehra Mac Industries Private Limited vs. The Deputy State Tax OfficerTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- Santosh Das And Anr. vs. Union Of INDIACalcutta · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S Rama Krishna Industries vs. State Of Hp And OthersHimachal Pradesh · 30 Oct 2026
- Smt Usha W/O Shri Tarun vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maruti Nandan Minetech Private Limited vs. The Joint CommissionerRajasthan · 29 Oct 2026