ISRAR AHMED,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 63(2), NEW DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the assessment was framed ex-parte and the CIT(A) enhanced the addition. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal remanded the case to the Assessing Officer (AO) to frame a fresh assessment. The AO is directed to provide the assessee a full opportunity to produce all relevant documents and be heard.
What were the facts?
An ex-parte assessment order under section 147/144 added Rs. 46,58,891/- as unexplained income from undisclosed sources. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal and further enhanced the addition to Rs. 1,17,79,860/-. The assessee subsequently appealed to the Tribunal.
What were the issues?
Whether the ex-parte assessment and subsequent enhancement by CIT(A) were valid without providing the assessee adequate opportunity to explain bank deposits and produce supporting documents.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘C’: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN & SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S.
This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Ld. Ld.
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, New Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)” for short], dated 29/01/2018 for the Assessment Year 2008-09.
The grounds of Appeal are as under: -
“1. That learned CIT (A) has erred in not quashing the proceedings initiated and the assessment order u/s 147/144 despite fact that the learned AO has not made an efforts to serve any of the notices on the assessee as provided by law.
2. That the learned CIT (A) has erred in determining the total of the credit/deposit side of the bank accounts as unexplained income and even enhancing it to Rs. 1,17,79,860(1,17,19,860 + 60,000).
3. That the learned CIT (A) has erred in not accepting the explanations of the Appellant that in the line of dealing of old tyres, the purchases and sales are mainly in cash and the income may be estimated on a reasonable basis...
4. That the learned CIT (A) has erred in not observing the principle of determining the true income.
5. That the learned CIT (A), has erred in not accepting that the source of deposits is from the withdrawals from the bank and restricting the addition to peak balance.
6. The above grounds are independent and without prejudice to each other.
The appellant seeks leave to add, amend, alter or abandon any of the above grounds at the time of hearing of the appeal.”
Brief facts of the case are that, an assessment order came to be passed u/s 147/144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short) of the Act by making addition of Rs. 46,58,891/- on account of unexplained income from undisclosed sources. As against the assessment order dated 26/03/2015, the Assessee preferred the Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 29/01/2018, dismissed the Appeal and also enhanced the addition. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Assessee preferred the present Appeal on the grounds mentioned above.
The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the assessment order has been framed u/s 144 of the Act and on the other hand, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in determining the total of the credit/deposit side of the bank accounts as unexplainedincome, further committed error in enhancing the addition to Rs 1,17,79,860/-. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee further submitted that the Assessee has produced all the relevant documents to substantiate the claim of the Assessee, which were not been considered by both the authorities, thus sought for allowing the Appeal.
Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative by relying on the orders of the Lower Authorities sought for dismissal of the Appeal.
6. It is seen from the record that the assessment has been framed ex- parte u/s 147/144 of the Act. During the first appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A),enhancement has been made to the tune of Rs. 1,17,79,860/.
The Assessee has produced several documents in which some are part of the assessment record. Considering the fact that the assessment has been framed ex-parte, in the interest of justice, we deem it fit to provide an opportunity to the Assessee to produce any/all documents to substantiate the claim of the Assessee before the A.O. Accordingly, the issue involved in the present Appeal is remanded to the A.O. with a direction to frame the assessment afresh in accordance with law after providing an opportunity of being heard to the Assessee.
In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in open Court on 07th November, 2024
More judgments on Section 147
- Bha Associates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs ACIT, Central Circle- 29, New DelhiITA 5208/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: Disposed6 Nov 2026AY 2015-16
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Shri. Adbul Rahim vs. The State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 13 Nov 2026
- Sandhyarani Das vs. The Superintendent Of CGST And Central ExciseOrissa · 11 Nov 2026
- M/S.Pitabas Jena,Pokharigaon, Cuttack vs. Supernitendent, Cuttack-Iii, Range, CuttackOrissa · 11 Nov 2026
- Sudarshan Behera vs. Superintendent Angul Circle, AngulOrissa · 11 Nov 2026
- Gayatri Priyadarshini Bisoi vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Cuttack-Ii,Cuttack, OdishaOrissa · 11 Nov 2026
