SUNIL KUMAR KUKREJA,HISAR vs. ITO WARD-4, HISAR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice and with the consent of both parties, the issues in dispute are remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to decide the matter afresh after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 32,80,000 under section 68 of the Income Tax Act for cash deposits during the demonetization period, passing an ex-parte order under section 144 due to the assessee's non-representation. The Ld. CIT(A) subsequently dismissed the assessee's appeal for non-prosecution, leading to the current appeal before the Tribunal.
What were the issues?
Whether the ex-parte assessment and additions made under sections 144 and 68 without proper opportunity or notice are valid, and if the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “G”, NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, & SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US
Appellant by : Shri Lalit Mohan, CA Respondent by : Ms. Shashi Kajle, Sr. DR. Date of hearing : 28.10.2024 Date of pronouncement : 28.10.2024 ORDER
PER SHAMIM YAHYA, AM :
The Assessee has filed the instant Appeal against the Order of the Ld. CIT(Appeal)/NFAC, Delhi dated 04.01.2024, relating to assessment year 2017-18 on the following grounds:-
1. Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the validity of order dated 30.12.2019 u/s. 144 of the Act, which is without jurisdiction.
2. Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the order u/s. 144 of the Act passed by the AO, Ward-4, Hisar regarding addition of Rs. 32,80,000/- u/s. 68 of the Act, on account of cash deposited in bank during demonetization period between 9.11.2016 to 30.12.2016 and addition of Rs. 21,69,767/- (without section), by applying GP rate 1% of Rs. 21,67,76,709/- regarding credit entries in bank accounts.
3. Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the order u/s. 144 of the Act, passed by the AO- Ward -4 Hisar without affording proper opportunity and without service of notice as per rule 127 of the Income Tax Rules, issued by AO and by CIT(A).
4. Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the order u/s. 144 of the Act, passed by AO-Ward 4, Hisar without issue / service of appropriate show cause notice by AO, as per instruction no. 20/2015 dated 29.12.2015 issued by CBDT.
Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the order u/s. 144 of the Act, passed by the AO, Ward 4, Hisar, without considering the reply by the AO and without considering the grounds of appeal
by the Ld. CIT(A).
6. Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the order u/s. 144 of the Act, passed by the AO, Ward-4, Hisar, without service of notice u/s. 142(1) dated 12.12.2017 and without service of notice u/s. 148 of the Act.
2. The brief facts of the case are that AO made the addition of Rs. 32,80,000/- u/s. 68 of the Act on account of cash deposits during the demonetization period. No representation from the Assessee was made before the AO, hence, AO passed the order u/s. 144 of the Act.
3. Against the above order, assessee appealed before the Ld. CIT(A), who dismissed the assessee’s appeal for non-prosecution.
4. Against the Ld. CIT(A)’s order, assessee is in appeal before us.
5. At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed that since assessee was not represented before the AO as well as CIT(A), hence, he pleaded that an opportunity may be granted to the assessee before the AO to canvass his case.
6. Per contra, Ld. DR did not have any objection to the aforesaid proposition made by the Ld. AR for the assessee. 2
After considering the aforesaid, we are of the considered view, that interest of justice will be served, if the issues in dispute are remitted back to the file of the AO with the directions to decide the same afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We hold and direct accordingly.
In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 28/10/2024.
More judgments on Section 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dwaraka Jewellers, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S N D Waddar And Co vs. Sri Gaurav GuptaKarnataka · 30 Oct 2026
- Kanwar Enterprises Private Limited vs. The Joint Commissioner - State TaxTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bangi Mines And Minerals vs. The State Of TelanganaTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Arka Business Solutions vs. Principal Commissioner Of CustomsTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
