ANKIT GUPTA,ALLAHABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE- 1(1) , ALLAHABAD
Facts
The assessee, an individual engaged in a two-wheeler dealership, faced an assessment u/s 143(3) where the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.1,65,55,042/- u/s 68 for unexplained capital. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte. The assessee contended before the ITAT that the ex-parte dismissal was due to a bona fide belief that counsel was submitting responses.
Held
The ITAT noted that the assessee was not properly represented before the CIT(A), considering the claim of bona fide belief. In the interest of substantial justice, the ITAT set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the issue of the Rs.1,65,55,042/- addition back to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A)'s ex-parte dismissal of the appeal was justified when the assessee claimed lack of representation due to a bona fide belief, and whether the addition under Section 68 should be re-examined after providing proper opportunity of hearing.
Sections Cited
Section 143(3), Section 68
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD
Before: SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA & SHRI SUBHASH MALGURIA
PER SUBHASH MALGURIA:J.M.
This appeal vide I.T.A. No.133/Alld/2025 has been filed by the assessee for assessment year 2017-18 against impugned order dated 20/05/2025 (DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1076302520(1) passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [(“CIT(A)” for short].
The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and engaged in the business of two wheeler dealership of Honda Motor &
I.T.A. No.133/Alld/2025 Assessment Year:2017-18 2
Scooter India Ltd. and authorized workshop of Honda Motor & Scooter India Ltd. in the name and style of M/s Shree Grand Auto. The assessee filed his return of income on 29/10/2017, showing an income of Rs.83,58,440/-. The case was selected for scrutiny by CASS. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment and passed assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act on 06/12/2019 and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.2,49,13,482/- by making addition of Rs.1,65,55,042/- on account of unexplained capital addition u/s 68 of the I. T. Act. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A). Vide impugned appellate order dated 20/05/2025, the learned CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
During the course of hearing in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, none was present on behalf of the assessee. In the absence of any representation from the assessee’s side, learned Departmental Representative for Revenue was heard and materials available on record were perused. The learned Sr. D.R. for Revenue relied on the assessment order, and the impugned order of learned CIT(A). He also opposed remanding back of the matter to either of the two lower authorities relying on the decision of CIT vs. SAS Educational Society [2009] 319 ITR 65 (P&H).
Learned Department Representative was heard and materials on record have been perused. In ground 8 of the appeal, the appellant assessee has stated that the appellant was under a bonafide belief that his counsel was submitting the response in the appellate proceedings before the CIT(A); however, in the absence of reaponse, an ex-parte appellate order had been passed by the learned CIT(A) alleging that the findings
I.T.A. No.133/Alld/2025 Assessment Year:2017-18 3
given by the Assessing Officer could not be rebutted by the appellant. As the appellant assessee has not been represented properly before learned CIT(A), we consider it fit in the interest of substantial justice, in the facts and circumstances of this specific case, to provide another opportunity to the assessee to present its case before the learned CIT(A). Accordingly, the impugned order of learned CIT(A) is set aside and the issue in dispute regarding the aforesaid addition of Rs.1,65,55,042/- is restored back to the file of the learned CIT(A) with the direction to pass fresh order in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
(Order pronounced in the open court on 10/11/2025)
Sd/. Sd/. (ANADEE NATH MISSHRA) (SUBHASH MALGURIA) Accountant Member Judicial Member
Dated:10/11/2025 *Singh
Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. Concerned CIT 4. D.R., I.T.A.T.
