ASHUTOSH SHAH,PATNA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CIRCLE -4 , PATNA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex parte without adjudicating the merits. In the interest of justice, the assessee deserves another opportunity to represent the case before the first appellate authority.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed a return declaring income of ₹10,36,550/-, which was selected for limited scrutiny concerning large cash deposits during the demonetisation period. The Assessing Officer increased the total income to ₹43,34,050/- by adding ₹32,97,500/- under section 69A for cash deposits in specified bank notes.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex parte without adjudicating the issues on merits, and if the assessee deserves another opportunity for a fair hearing.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH”, PATNA
Appearances by: Assessee represented by : None Department represented by : Shri Rajat Datta, CIT-DR Date of concluding the hearing : 16.09.2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 17.09.2025 O R D E R
PER SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
This appeal arises from order dated 29.03.2024, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”) by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) [hereafter “the Ld. CIT(A)].
At the outset, it was brought to our notice that the appeal is delayed by 143 days in filing before this Bench. In this connection, the assessee has filed a petition explaining the reasons for such delay. Upon considering Ashutosh Shah the submissions and materials placed, we are satisfied that there was reasonable cause for the delay. Accordingly, the delay of 143 days is condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication.
Brief Facts of the Case are that the assessee filed return of income for the year under consideration declaring income of ₹10,36,550/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny for verifying large cash deposits during the demonetisation period. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, determining the total income at ₹43,34,050/-, after making an addition of ₹32,97,500/- under section 69A of the Act on account of cash deposits in specified bank notes.
Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(A). However, the appeal was dismissed ex parte on the ground that the assessee did not appear in response to the notices issued.
Before us, the assessee has raised various grounds. The primary contention of assessee is that the learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee ex parte without adjudicating the issues on merits. We, after hearing both parties and perusing the material on record, we are of the considered opinion that in the interest of justice and faire play the assessee deserves one more opportunity to represent its case before the first appellate authority. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file for fresh adjudication, after affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
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 →- Puspanjali Bhuyan vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S A2Z Infra Engineering LTD vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026
- Kundan Patel vs. State Bank Of INDIAMadhya Pradesh · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Pacific Export vs. The State Of Madhya PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Kashiram Fuels Lole Propritorship Firm Through Proprietor Swati vs. Bank Of INDIAMadhya Pradesh · 13 Oct 2026