SANJAY SONI,BHANPURA ROAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MANDSAUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 392/IND/2025Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 November 2025AY 2016-174 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, considering the submissions of both parties, the principle of natural justice, and the fact that no prejudice would be caused to the revenue, decided to remand the matter back to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal held that the assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. The remand is subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the "Prime Minister National Relief Fund" and producing the receipt to the AO. The AO is directed to provide the assessee with an opportunity of hearing and pass an appropriate order uninfluenced by the previous order. The assessee is also directed to be vigilant and ensure participation in hearings, avoiding unnecessary adjournments. The AO is at liberty to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law if the assessee fails to comply.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sanjay Soni, is aggrieved by the assessment order dated 01.03.2024 passed by the Assessment Unit (AO) under section 147 read with sections 144 and 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2016-17. The AO made an addition of Rs. 52,38,400/- under section 69A, treating bank deposits as unexplained money due to the assessee's non-representation. The CIT(A) also passed an ex-parte order, dismissing the assessee's appeal for non-prosecution and upholding the AO's order. The assessee contends that non-representation occurred because notices were not received. The assessee, a RTO agent, claims the deposits were made in the normal course of business and do not represent income. The assessee seeks a remand to the AO for adjudication on merits.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the assessee's appeal for non-prosecution without adjudicating the grounds on merits, contrary to the provisions of section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argues that non-representation at the lower levels was due to not being aware of the notices. The assessee, a RTO agent, claims the bank deposits of Rs. 52,38,400/- were made in the normal course of business and do not represent income. The assessee relies on the principle of natural justice and requests a remand to the AO for proper adjudication on merits. Revenue's Contention: The revenue has no objection if the case is remanded to the AO, provided a suitable cost is imposed on the assessee and stricter directions are given for representation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 69A,Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE

Before: SHRI B.M. BIYANI

For Appellant: Shri Shashank Sharma, AR
For Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR
Hearing: 26.11.2025Pronounced: 28.11.2025

आदेश/ O R D E R

Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:

1.

Feeling aggrieved by order of first-appeal dated 06.02.2025 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 01.03.2024 passed by learned Assessment Unit of Income-tax Department [“AO”] u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 & 144B of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2016-17, the assessee has filed this appeal on the grounds mentioned in Appeal Memo (Form No. 36).

2.

Ld. AR for assessee submits that the AO has passed assessment-order ex-parte to assessee u/s 144 after making an addition of Rs. 52,38,400/- u/s 69A treating the bank deposits as unexplained money for non- representation by assessee during assessment-proceeding. Thereafter, the CIT(A) has also passed order of first appeal ex-parte to assessee and dismissed assessee’s appeal due to non-prosecution and merely upheld AO’s order but the grounds/issues raised by assessee in first appeal requires an apt adjudication by CIT(A) on merit in accordance with provisions of 250(6) of the Act which provides “The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision.”. Ld. AR submitted that the non-representation/non-prosecution at lowers levels had occurred because the assessee was not aware of the notices sent by AO and CIT(A).

He submitted that the assessee is a RTO agent and the impugned deposits in bank a/c were made in the normal course of business of RTO agent carried on by assessee, hence the impugned deposits do not represent income of assessee and the AO is wrong in deeming entire amount of deposits as income of assessee. He submitted that the assessee is ready and willing to make a proper representation before AO if an opportunity is given and prays that the present matter should be remanded to AO for an apt adjudication.

3.

Ld. DR for revenue submits that he would have no objection if the the case is remanded to AO with a suitable cost upon assessee and also with a stricter direction to assessee to represent his case before AO.

4.

In view of above submissions of parties; having regard to the principle of natural justice and also bearing in mind that no prejudice would be caused to revenue if the present matter is restored at the level of AO, we remand this matter back to the file of AO for adjudication afresh, at the risk and responsibility of assessee and also subject to payment of a cost of Rs. 5,000/- by assessee to “Prime Minister National Relief Fund” and production of receipt to AO during proceedings. The AO shall give necessary opportunity of hearing to assessee and pass an appropriate order uninfluenced by his earlier order. The assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and ensure participation in the hearings as may be fixed by AO and do not seek unnecessary adjournments failing which the AO shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly.

5.

Resultantly, this appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in open court on 28/11/2025

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →