SEEMA VERMA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-44(1), NEW DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to present her case. The assessee is directed to appear without adjournment, failing which the CIT(A) can pass an order as per law.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal challenged an ex parte order by the CIT(A) which confirmed additions made by the AO, including Rs. 12,55,000 under Section 68 for unexplained cash deposits. The assessee failed to appear before the CIT(A) despite multiple opportunities.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex parte order without giving the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard, and if the additions made by the AO under Section 68 were justified.
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 Seema Verma, Vs. ITO, M-179, 1st Floor, Ward-44(1), Vikas Puri, New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN: AHGPV3566K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri V.K. Sabharwal, Advocate Revenue by : Ms Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 14.03.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 27.03.2019 ORDER
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 29th June, 2018 of the CIT(A)-15, New Delhi, relating to Assessment Year 2010-11.
The assessee in her various grounds of appeal challenged the ex parte order of the CIT(A) in confirming the various additions made by the Assessing Officer and upholding the order initiating reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the IT Act.
Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual. Notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 31st March, 2017, after recording reasons and with the prior approval of the DCIT-15, Delhi. In response to notice u/s 148, the assessee filed return of income on 25th May, 2017 declaring a taxable income of Rs.1,73,110/- after claiming a deduction of Rs.56,944/- under Chapter VIA of the IT Act. The Assessing Officer, in the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the IT Act, made addition of Rs.12,55,000/- u/s 68 of the Act being unexplained cash deposits in her savings bank account maintained with Syndicate Bank. Since, despite service of notice, no one appeared before the CIT(A), the ld.CIT(A), in the ex parte order passed by him, upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer.
Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
I have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the orders of the authorities below. It is an admitted fact that due to non-appearance before the CIT(A) despite number of opportunities, the assessee did not appear before the CIT(A) for which the ld.CIT(A) in the ex parte order passed by him, upheld the action of the Assessing Officer in making the addition u/s 68 of the Act. It is the submission of the ld. counsel for the assessee that given an opportunity, the assessee is in a position to substantiate her case. Considering the totality of the facts and in the interest of justice, I deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the ld.CIT(A) with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate her case and decide the issue as per fact and law. The assessee is also hereby directed to appear before the CIT(A) without seeking any adjournment under any pretext 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. Pronounced in the open court on 27.03.2019.
More judgments on Section 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Gagan Bihari Rout@Gagan Rout vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Biswanath Rana vs. The Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Sushama Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Saudamini Samantray vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar IiOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Keshav Rice Mill, Ganjam vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, KatakaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026