FARYAD ALI,GHAZIABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2), GHAZIABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, the matter should be remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer. The AO was directed to consider the issues afresh, pass a speaking order, and provide adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, considering the assessee's inability to pursue the matter properly before lower authorities.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 98,56,053/- for unexplained bank deposits under sections 144 r.w.s. 147 for assessment year 2012-13. The Ld. CIT(A) subsequently dismissed the assessee's appeal against this addition due to non-prosecution, leading the assessee to appeal to the ITAT.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present their case before the lower authorities, particularly when the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution, and to reconsider the addition for unexplained bank deposits.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “B”, NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, & SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK
Appellant by : Shri Sumit Gupta, CA Respondent by : Ms. Harpreet Kaur, Sr. DR. Date of hearing : 24.10.2024 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 07.06.2023, relating to assessment year 2012-13.
In this case AO has passed the assessment order u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 26.10.2018 by making addition of Rs. 98,56,053/- being unexplained deposits in the bank account. Upon asessee’s appeal, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assesse for non-prosecution.
Against the above order of the Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before us.
At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed that assessee may be granted one more opportunity to properly canvass the appeal, as assessee has not been able to pursue the matter with the lower authorities in a proper manner.
Per contra, Ld. DR did not have any objection to the aforesaid proposition made by the Ld. AR for the assessee.
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 consider the same afresh and pass a speaking order, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We hold and direct accordingly. 7. In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
More judgments on Section 147
- 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
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Mehra Mac Industries Private Limited vs. The Deputy State Tax OfficerTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- Santosh Das And Anr. vs. Union Of INDIACalcutta · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S Rama Krishna Industries vs. State Of Hp And OthersHimachal Pradesh · 30 Oct 2026
- Smt Usha W/O Shri Tarun vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maruti Nandan Minetech Private Limited vs. The Joint CommissionerRajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
