LALO KAMAT,SAHARSA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the assessment was completed without any response from the assessee, and the CIT(A) had confirmed the AO's order on the same ground. Considering the assessee's prayer for an opportunity to present their case and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal inclined to restore the appeal to the AO.
What were the facts?
The assessee did not file a return of income for AY 2018-19. Following information received from the insight portal, an order u/s 148A(d) was passed, and subsequently, a notice u/s 148 was issued. The assessee failed to respond to the notice u/s 142(1), leading to an addition of Rs. 14,68,57,000/- on account of cash deposits.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessment order and CIT(A) order, passed ex-parte due to non-response from the assessee, should be set aside to grant an opportunity to the assessee to present their case.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “DB” BENCH: PATNA
Before: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]
ORDER / आदेश Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, JM: This is the appeal preferred by the assessee against order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. PCIT] dated 10.12.2024 for AY 2018-19.
Brief facts of the case of the assessee are that the assessee did not file return of income for AY 2018-19. On the information received from insight portal an order u/s 148A(d) was passed. Subsequently the notice u/s 148 was issued as the information received that the assessee has carried out huge transaction during the year under consideration. However, the assessee did not file return of income. In response to the notice u/s 142(1) of the Act, no response has been submitted from the side of the assessee, as a result of which addition on account of cash deposits in current account i.e. an amount of Rs. 14,68,57,000/- has been added to the income of the assessee.
Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed as there was no response.
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied the assessee preferred an appeal before us.
The Ld. A.R by filing several documentary evidences before this Tribunal has prayed that the assessee has been given an opportunity to place his case before the AO as the order passed by the AO confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) are an ex-parte order.
The Ld. D.R did not raise any objection in remitting the appeal back to the file of AO.
Upon hearing the submission of the counsel of the respective parties, we have perused the order of lower authorities and there is no denying to this fact that assessment was done when there was no response from the side of the assessee and the Ld. CIT(A) has also confirmed the order of AO on the same ground. Considering the prayer of the Assessment Years: 2018-19 Lalo Kamat assessee, going over the order passed by the lower authorities and for the interest of justice, we are inclined to restore the appeal of the assessee to the file of AO with a direction to pass a fresh order after affording an opportunity to hear the assessee. Accordingly order passed by lower authorities are hereby set aside.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order is pronounced in the open court on 22nd July, 2025
Sd/- Sd/- (Rajesh Kumar/राजेश कुमार) (Pradip Kumar Choubey /�द�प कुमार चौबे) Accountant Member/लेखा सद�य Judicial Member/�या�यक सद�य Dated: 22nd July, 2025 SM, Sr. PS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant- Lalo Kamat, C/o, Lalan Fruits Supplier, Sonbarsa, Ward no. 07, Disti- Saharsa (Bihar)-852129 2. Respondent – PCIT, Bhagalpur 3. DR, Patna Bench, Patna
More judgments on Section 148A(d)
- Kkg Associates, Visakhapatnam vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(1)…ITA 345/VIZ/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Venkata Durga Agencies, Kakinada vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, KakinadaITA 692/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Radhakishan Potharajula, Karim Nagar vs ITO (Int Taxn)-2, HyderabadITA 2340/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
- Firoz Khan Jamil Khan Pathan, Bhandara vs ITO Ward-2 Bhandara, BhandaraITA 79/NAG/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Ashok Khubchandani, Raipur vs DCIT, Circle 1(1), RaipurITA 437/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- 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
- M/S South INDIA Trading Company vs. Additional Commissioner Adjudication CGST Delhi North & Anr.Delhi · 13 Oct 2026