Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, engaged in logistics, filed its ITR for AY 2017-18. The Assessing Officer completed scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) and added Rs. 47,01,000 as unexplained credits under section 68 for cash deposits made during the demonetization period. The CIT(A) subsequently dismissed the assessee's appeal in limine for non-prosecution.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without adjudicating on its merits. With the consent of both parties, the Tribunal decided to remit the case back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on the merits of the addition made under section 68.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal in limine due to non-prosecution and the taxability of cash deposits as unexplained credits under Section 68.
Sections Cited
Section 143(3), Section 68, Income Tax Act, 1961
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘G’: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT & SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA
This appeal of the Assessment Year [In Short, the ‘AY’] 2017- 18 preferred by the assessee is against the order dated 18.10.2023 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), New Delhi [In Short, the ‘CIT(A)’]. The impugned order is challenged before us on the issue of non- maintainability being bad in law as it was passed in limine and not on the merit of the case.
The relevant facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are that the appellant/assessee, engaged in the business of freight forwarding and logistics services, filed its Income Tax Return (In short, the ‘ITR’) on 07.11.2017 declaring income of Rs.1,06,96,780/-. The case was picked up for scrutiny and the assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (In short, the ‘Act’) determining income at Rs.1,53,97,780. The cash deposits of Rs.47,01,000/- during the demonetization period was taxed by the Assessing Officer as unexplained credits under section 68 of the Act.
Aggrieved, the appellant/assessee raised the issue before the CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal in limine due to non-prosecution. The Ld. Counsel prayed for setting aside the case before the CIT(A) for afresh adjudication on merit. To which, the Ld. Sr. DR did not object.
We have heard both the parties and perused the case record. We are of the considered view that it is a fit case for remitting back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merit. Accordingly, we order so.
In view of the above, the appeal of the appellant/assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open Court on 31st May, 2024.