SARVJEET SINGH,FATEHABAD vs. ITO WARD - 2, FATEHABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution without considering the merits of the assessee's submissions. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
What were the facts?
The assessee had cash deposits totaling Rs. 59,11,400/- and Rs. 38,29,480/- in a joint bank account. The Assessing Officer initiated proceedings under Section 147 and made additions under Section 68 after the assessee failed to file a return.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without adjudicating on the merits of the case. Whether the principles of natural justice were followed by the lower authorities.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘G’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI R. K. PANDA & MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE
ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 28.01.2019 passed by CIT(A), Hisar for Assessment Year 2009-10.
The grounds of appeal are as under:- “1. That the order of the Learned Assessing Authority is bad in law against facts and equity.
2. That Learned Assessing Authority made assessment u/s 144 without considering the facts, erred in calculating the income and without giving opportunity of being heard
3. That learned Assessing Authority was erred in making addition of Rs. 5911400/- on account of deposit in bank
4. That Learned Assessing Authority was erred in making addition of Rs. 3829480/- on account of deposit of bank.” 3. The assessee and his wife Smt. Veerpal Kaur were maintaining a joint account No. 06041930001326 with HDFC bank, Fatehabad. during the F.Y. 2008-09 relevant to A.Y. 2009-10, huge cash deposits of Rs. 59,11,400/- were found made in his joint account on different dates and different amount. The case of the assessee has selected through CASS and statutory notices were issued. During the assessment proceeding Smt. Veerpal Kaur Submitted that all the cash deposits entries in the said joint account pertain to her husband Sh. Sarvjeet Singh. The fact was confirmed by Sh. Sarvjeet Singh and stated vide affidavit that the transactions were related to him. Taking cognizance of the statement of Sh. Sarvjeet Singh, the case of Smt. Verpal Kaur for the A.Y. 2009-10 was assessed at the returned income and no action with regard to the source of said cash deposits entries were taken in her hands. Since, Sh. Sarvjeet Singh has admitted the fact of operating the said joint account and making the cash deposit in the said bank account the proceeding u/s 147, of the Act were initiated and notice u/s 148 was issued on 28.03.2014 which was served upon him on 29.03.2014 requiring the assessee to deliver the return of income for the A.Y. 2009-10 within 30 days from the date of service of notice. But the assessee failed to do so. Under these circumstances the Assessing Officer was left with no alternative but to complete the time barring assessment to the best of judgment u/s 144 of the Act. And made addition of Rs. 59,11,400/- and Rs. 38,29,480/- u/s 68 of the Act in joint bank account No. 06041930001326 and account No. 11117547994 respectively.
Being aggrieved by the above, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of non prosecution.
The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has filed detailed reply before the Assessing Officer as well as before the CIT(A) which was never considered by both the Revenue Authorities. Therefore, both the orders are ex-parte and principle of natural justice has not been properly followed.
The Ld. DR submitted that ample opportunities were given by the Assessing Officer as well as by the CIT(A). Therefore, the Assessing Officer has rightly made additions and CIT(A) has rightly dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee solely on the ground that the assessee’s representative has not appeared before the authorities but on merit, the CIT(A) has not at all discussed and decided in light of the reply filed by the assessee before the Assessing Officer as well as before the CIT(A). Therefore, in the interest of justice, it will be appropriate to remand back this matter to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. Needless to say, the assessee be given proper opportunity of hearing by following principles of natural justice and it will be an obligatory on part of the assessee to cooperate the adjudicating/appellate authority by remaining present at the time of hearing.
In result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 31st MAY, 2019.
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
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sutlej Textiles And Industries Limited vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S. Ut Corp vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- Sunrise Engineering vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Kalra Traders vs. Union Of INDIAUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Ms Isoft vs. The Commissioner State TaxUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
