M/S. D.K.P. TRADING CO.,JIND vs. ITO, JIND
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 substantiate its case. The assessee was directed to appear before the CIT(A) to explain its case.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a partnership firm, declared a total income of Rs. 11,580/-. The AO made an addition of Rs. 15,00,000/- under Section 69A for unexplained cash and Rs. 85,000/- as interest on this amount. The assessee failed to appear before the CIT(A).
What were the issues?
Whether the addition made by the AO under Section 69A for unexplained cash and interest was justified. Whether the assessee was given adequate opportunity to present its case.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “B”, NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI R.K. PANDA & SHRI KULDIP SINGH
ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, A.M.: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 03.05.2016 of the learned CIT(A), Faridabad, relating to the assessment year 2012-13.
Despite service of notice, none appeared on behalf of the assessee, therefore, this appeal is being disposed of on the basis of material available on record and after hearing the learned DR.
Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a partnership firm and is engaged in the business as commission agent in food grains. It filed its return of income on 26.12.2012, declaring total income of Rs.11,580/-. The AO completed the 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) on 04.07.2014, determining the total income of Rs.15,96,580/-, wherein he made addition of Rs.15,00,000/- under Section 69A of the Act on the ground that Sh. Rakesh Kumar, one of the partners, had given Rs.15 lacs on interest @1% p.m. on 19.10.2011 to one Sh. Sandeep Kumar, S/o- Sh. Satyawan. The entry in respect of the said transaction is duly recorded at page 3 of the purported cash book pertaining to M/s. DKP Trading Company. Sh. Rakesh Kumar, partner, has put his signature on the said purported cash book as ‘for M/s. D.K.P. Trading Co.’ which shows the authentication of the transaction. Since the assessee could not explain to the satisfaction of the AO regarding the above entry, the AO invoking the provision of Section 69A of the Act made the addition of Rs.15,00,000/-. Similarly, the AO made addition of Rs.85,000/- being interest accrued on the said loan for the period from 19.10.2011 to 31.03.2012. He, accordingly, determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.15,96,580/-. 3.1 Since the assessee did not appear before the learned CIT(A) despite number of opportunities granted, the learned CIT(A) in the ex-parte order passed by him, affirmed the addition made by the AO and thereby dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. Aggrieved with such order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
We have heard the learned DR and perused the relevant material available on record. It is an admitted fact that despite repeated opportunities granted by the CIT(A), the assessee did not appear before him, for which, he has passed the ex-parte order sustaining the two additions made by the AO. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the learned CIT(A) with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case and decide the case as per fact and law. The assessee is also hereby directed to appear before the learned CIT(A) and explain its case, failing which, the learned CIT(A) is at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised
by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.
5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order is pronounced in the open court on 15th April, 2019.
More judgments on Section 69A
- Vishal Kumar Patel(HUF), Raipur vs DCIT, Circle-1(1), RaipurITA 595/RPR/2026[2017-18]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Ashok Singh, Jaipur vs ACIT, Circle-2 Jaipur, JaipurITA 1540/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Neepaben Sunnybhai Motwani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, RajkotITA 875/RJT/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- J.M.Swamy vs. Government Of INDIAKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Acc LTD. vs. Secy.Industries Deptt.Orissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Kumaran Transports (Tuticorin) Private Limited vs. The Assistant Commissioner Madras · 16 Oct 2026