ABAD MOHAHAMAD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-48(1), NEW DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer failed to provide details of the bank account where the cash was deposited. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after providing the necessary details and an opportunity to be heard.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings based on AIR information regarding a cash deposit of Rs. 12,10,948/-. The assessee did not attend the assessment proceedings, leading to an ex-parte addition. The CIT(A) confirmed this addition.
What were the issues?
Whether the ex-parte assessment order, based on unverified AIR information without providing specific bank details, is sustainable. The need for the Assessing Officer to provide details of the bank account and consider the assessee's filed return.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘SMC’ BENCH,
Before: SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA
PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
With this appeal, the assessee has challenged the correctness of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] – 16, New Delhi dated 31.08.2018 pertaining to A.Y 2010-11.
The solitary grievance of the assessee is that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the exparte order of the Assessing Officer.
Facts on record show that as per the information available on ITD, the Assessing Officer came to know that the assessee has deposited cash amounting to Rs. 12,10,948/- and the assessee had filed his return of income. Accordingly, proceedings u/s 147 of the Act were initiated and notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued. Reasons were recorded for reopening assessment with reference to the information received in respect of deposit of Rs. 12,10,948/- in the bank account.
Since nobody attended the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 12,10,948/-.
The assessee carried the matter before the CIT(A) and vehemently contended that the Assessing Officer did not provide any details of bank account in which the cash was found to be deposited. The contention of the assessee did not find any favour with the CIT(A who confirmed the assessment.
Before me, the ld. AR once again stated that the Assessing Officer has neither provided details regarding which bank account cash was found to be deposited nor he has given the AIR information on the basis of which the assessment order was reopened. It is the say of the ld. AR that the assessee did file return of income, which has been completely ignored by the Assessing Officer. The ld. AR supplied copy of acknowledgment of filing of return of income.
On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the findings of the CIT(A).
I have carefully perused the orders of the authorities below. I find that though the Assessing Officer has referred to the AIR information, but nowhere in his assessment order he has mentioned the name of the bank in which cash was found to be deposited. The contention of the ld. AR that there is no cash deposit in the bank account of the assessee cannot be brushed aside lightly, though the contention cannot also be verified, as I am unaware of the bank account, which the Assessing Officer is referring to.
In the interest of justice and fair play, I deem it fit to restore this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to furnish the details of the bank account in which the cash was found to be deposited as per the AIR information. The Assessing Officer is also directed to consider the return of income filed by the assessee wherein the returned income is shown at Rs. 1,55,880/- and decide the appeal afresh after giving reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in is allowed for statistical purposes.
The order is pronounced in the open court on 26.04.2019.
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 →- M/S. Nanda Contruction PVT. LTD., Angul vs. Additional Commissioner, GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, SundergarhOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Utkal Suppliers,Ganjam vs. Assistant Commissioner Of CT And GST, Ganjam-I Circle,GanjamOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026