Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee did not file an income tax return for AY 2012-13 but had made a cash deposit of Rs. 20,00,000/- in a bank account, leading to the reopening of the case under section 148 and initiation of penalty proceedings. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the actions of the AO, including the addition under section 69A and various penalties, despite the assessee's failure to furnish requisite details during the appellate proceedings.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the 72-day delay in filing the appeal, recognizing that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to submit details to the lower authorities. Emphasizing principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. The assessee was directed to submit all relevant documents and comply with notices without unnecessary adjournments.
Key Issues
Key issues included the violation of natural justice due to the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order, the justification of reopening the assessment under section 147, the confirmation of a Rs. 20 lakh cash addition under section 69A, the levy of interest under sections 234A/B/C/D, and the initiation of penalty proceedings under sections 271(1)(c), 271(1)(b), and 271F.
Sections Cited
Section 147, Section 69A, Section 234A, Section 234B, Section 234C, Section 234D, Section 271(1)(c), Section 271(1)(b), Section 271F, Section 148
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE- & MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE
PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:-
This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the appellate order dated 17.06.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. CIT(A)”] relating to the Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “ 1.The Ld. CIT(A) has erred, both in law and on facts, in passing ex-parte order which is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice.
2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, action of reopening the assessment under section 147 of the Act is not justified.
3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred, both in law and on facts, in confirming addition of Rs.20,00,000/-made under section 69A of the Act in respect of cash deposits in the bank account.
4. Both, AO & CIT(A), have erred in passing the impugned orders without appreciating facts of the case, submissions of properly the assessee and documentary evidences available on record in the correct perspective. Such an act is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and hence, the impugned order deserves to be quashed.
5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming levy of interest u/s. 234A/B/C/D of the Act.
6. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming action of initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.
7. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming action of initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(b) of the Act.
The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming action of initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271F of the Act.”
The appeal is delayed by 72 days. An Affidavit dated 08/01/2026 in support of condonation of delay has been filed. wherein, it has been deposed by the assessee that his Tax Consultant had assigned the task of preparing and filling the appeal before the Tribunal, but could not file the appeal in time due to Diwali vacation. Non-filing of the appeal was on account of reasons behind assessee’s control and prayed to condone the delay and the appeal may be decided on merits. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we condone the delay.
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee has not filed return of income for the year under consideration though the assessee had made cash deposit in his Kuvargiri Hiragiri Gosai vs. ITO AY : 2012-13 3 bank account held with State Bank of India, Bhavnagar during the Financial Year (FY) 2011-12. As per ITS details, the assessee has made cash deposit of Rs.20,00,000/- with SBI and, accordingly the case of the assessee was reopened. The assessee was served upon the notice issued u/s.148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act’). Finally, the Assessing Officer (AO) issued notice u/s.271(1)(c) r.w.s. notice u/s.271F for non-filing of return of income.
Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who confirmed the action of the AO.
On perusal of the records, it is observed that the assessee was afforded opportunities of hearing to furnish details, clarifications, and explanations to substantiate his claim regarding alleged undisclosed cash deposit. However, despite being granted multiple opportunities, assessee failed to furnish the requisite details or explanations before the Ld. CIT(A). Consequently, the Ld. CIT(A), based on the material available on record, upheld the action of the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed that, given an opportunity, due compliance will be made, all necessary details, clarifications, and explanations would be furnished to the Revenue authorities. Hence, in the interests of justice, we set aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of the AO for de novo adjudication. The assessee shall submit all the relevant bank statement/submission/document before the AO and comply with the notices issued by the revenue authorities without seeking any unnecessary adjournments.
Kuvargiri Hiragiri Gosai vs. ITO AY : 2012-13 4 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. The order is pronounc The order is pronounced in the open Court on The order is pronounc The order is pronounc ed in the open Court on ed in the open Court on ed in the open Court on 16 16 16/01/2026 16 /01/2026 /01/2026 /01/2026