JAYENDRAKUMAR CHUNILAL SONI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(2)(2), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1930/AHD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 March 2026AY 2017-18Bench: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT Ms SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, acknowledging the assessee's difficulties due to their AR's demise, remanded the case to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The assessee was directed to submit all relevant documents and comply with future notices.

What were the facts?

The appellant challenged an addition of Rs. 1,35,75,000 for unaccounted cash deposits, confirmed by the CIT(A). The assessee claimed inability to present records before the CIT(A) due to the sudden demise of their Chartered Accountant, leading to an ex-parte dismissal of their appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Addition of unaccounted cash deposits under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act. 2. Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex parte when the assessee faced difficulties in presenting their case due to the demise of their authorised representative.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

For Appellant: Shri Sulabh Padshah, AR
For Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P Meena Sr. DR
Hearing: 02.03.2026Pronounced: 09.03.2026

[PAN :ACZPS3671 C] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Sulabh Padshah, AR Respondent by: Shri Rameshwar P Meena Sr. DR Date of Hearing 02.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement 09.03.2026 O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:- Delay Condoned This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the appellate order dated 15.02.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, relating to the Assessment Year 2017-18.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

1.

The Ld. CIT (A) has grossly erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal. He ought to have allowed the appeal fully in accordance with the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant before him.

Jeetendra L Pate Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2017-18 - 2– Due to sad Demise of our Learned Chartered Accountants, we were unable to present our supporting before the Id CIT and as he was associates with us since long, we were fully depend on him and after his death no one was knowing the facts of the case in house or in his office and as a result of that the Ld CIT passed an order as per their best of knowledge and belief As a result of that we were not in a position to file appropriate Appeals as well as submission to the your owner, we beg for the condolence request for the filing of delay of our appeal and request you to approve the same.

1. ADDITION OF RS. 1,37,61,385/- AS UNACCOUNTED CASH OF RS 1,35,75,000/- DEPOSITED IN VARIOUS BANK ACCOUNTS 1. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,35,75,000/- as made by the Ld. AO as notional amount as we were unable to present our record with the Id CIT as our Chartered Accountants sudden death was shocked us and as we don't have in house any qualified chartered accounts, we were unable to produce our data, details and explanations without appreciating the arguments and facts placed on record.

2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in not properly considering the written submission filed by the appelicant during the course of appeal proceedings as well as various judicial pronouncements relied upon by the appelicant.

3.

The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating the fact that appelicant is a Trader of the Gold and it has used to sold property as stock-in- trade' then the said property would become or partake the character of the stock, and any income derived from the stock, would be income from the business, and where the ratio of cash sales is very high. There was not a major changes in the cash sales during the Demonetisation period. We will produce the same at the time of hearing, Ld CIT is aware that any income derived from such stocks cannot be termed as income from property. The appellant firm reserves its right to add, amend, alter or modify any of the grounds statyed hereinabove either or at the time of hearing.

3. On perusal of the records, it is observed that the assessee was afforded several opportunities of being heard on 28.01.2021, 07.11.2022, 14.12.2023, 24.01.2023 and 03.02.2023. A final opportunity was also granted on 05.09.2021 and 23.01.2024 to furnish details, clarifications and explanations to substantiate the source of the alleged unexplained cash deposits in various bank accounts under Section 68 of the Income-tax Jeetendra L Pate Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2017-18 - 3– Act, 1961. However, despite being granted multiple opportunities, the assessee remained largely non-compliant and furnished submissions before the Ld. CIT(A) only on 15.02.2021. Consequently, the Ld. CIT(A), based on the material available on record, upheld the action of the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal ex parte. During the hearing before us, the Ld. Counsel submitted that due to the demise of the earlier Authorised Representative, the assessee could not effectively present his case or furnish the requisite documents before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld.AR prayed that, given an opportunity, due compliance will be made and would furnish all the necessary details, clarifications and explanations before the revenue authorities. Considering the totality of the facts and in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to remand the matter to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for conducting de novo adjudication. The assessee is directed to submit all relevant bank statements, documents and explanations before the Ld.CIT(A) and to strictly comply with the notices issued by the revenue authorities without seeking any unnecessary adjournments.

4.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

The order is pronounced in the open Court on 09.03.2026.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →