RAJENDRA NANASO GODASE,DOMBIVALI vs. ITO 3(2) , KALYAN
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the Assessee's counsel submitted that they never received further hearing notices. Considering the circumstances and to provide substantial justice, the Tribunal decided to grant one last opportunity.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer added Rs. 17,80,000/- as unexplained money (cash deposit) and levied a penalty of Rs. 1,37,505/-. The Assessee appealed to the Commissioner who issued a show cause notice. The Assessee requested time to gather evidence but failed to file submissions later.
What were the issues?
Whether the penalty was affirmed without affording a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee, and if the case should be remanded for fresh consideration.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 69A,Section 271AAC(1),Section 115BBE(1),Section 147,Section 144,Section 144(b),Section 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRYSHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR
Date of Hearing : 09.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 09.03.2026 O R D E R
Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:
This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 18.11.2025, impugned herein, passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi/Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short Ld. Commissioner] u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, [in short ‘the Act’] for the A.Y. 2017-18.
In the instant case, the Assessing Officer vide Assessment Order dated 11.04.2023, u/s 147 r.w.s 144 and 144(b) of the Act, has made the addition of Rs.17,80,000/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act, being cash deposit.
Subsequently, the Assessing Officer, vide penalty order dated 13.10.2023 u/s 271AAC(1) of the Act, ultimately levied the penalty to the tune of Rs.1,37,505/- being 10% of total tax determined u/s 115BBE(1) including SC and SHEC, to the tune of Rs.13,75,050/-.
The Assessee thus being aggrieved challenged the said penalty levied, by filing First Appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, who issued a show cause notice dated 29.09.2025 to the Assessee. In response to which, the Assessee, vide letter dated 09.10.2025 sought for time to gather evidence. However, as per impugned order, the Assessee failed to file any submission or response to the hearing notice, till the date of passing of the impugned order on 18.11.2025 and therefore, the Ld. Commissioner in the constrained circumstances, affirmed the aforesaid penalty by dismissing the Appeal of the Assessee.
We observe from the impugned order that though the Ld. Commissioner has specified the date of show cause notice i.e. 29.09.2025 in the impugned order against which the Assessee had sought for time
Rajendra Nanaso Godase vide letter dated 09.10.2025, however, in the impugned order, it is no where appears, as to what has happened thereafter. The Assessee’s Counsel thus has submitted that Assessee thereafter never received any notice for further hearing and/or opportunity of being heard.
Thus, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances in totality for just and proper decision of the case and substantial justice, we deem it appropriate to afford one last and final opportunity to the Assessee to substantiate its claim. Accordingly, the case is remanded to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, suffice to say by affording an reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee.
We clarify that in case of subsequent default, the Assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency.
In the result, the Assessee’s Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 09.03.2026.
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 →- 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
- M/S. Nanda Contruction PVT. LTD., Angul vs. Additional Commissioner, GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, SundergarhOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
