SUDESH KUMARI,JAMMU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 JAMMU RAIL HEAD COMPLEX PANAMA CHOWK JAMMU, JAMMU
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, remanded the matter back to the CIT(A). It directed the CIT(A) to provide the assessee another opportunity to file written submissions, supporting documentary evidence, and the cash book to properly explain the source of the SBN cash deposits to the satisfaction of the first appellate authority.
What were the facts?
The assessee, engaged in cement trading, filed an ITR with Rs. 10.26 lakhs income. The Assessing Officer added Rs. 30.08 lakhs for unexplained SBN cash deposits during the demonetisation period. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal without adjudicating on merits, as the assessee failed to file submissions despite receiving notices.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal without adjudicating on merits due to non-filing of submissions; whether the assessee should be granted a fresh opportunity to explain the source of cash deposits made during demonetisation.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR.
Before: SH. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL & SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA
ORDER Per: Udayan Dasgupta, J.M.: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi, passed u/s 250 of the Act, 1961 vide order dated 12.09.2024 which has emanated from the order of AO, NFAC, Delhi, passed u/s 147 of the Act, vide order dated 23.03.2022.
Assessment Year: 2017-18 2
The assessee has taken six grounds of appeal
in Form No. 36 and all of them relates to the issue of addition of Rs.30.08 lakhs on account of SBN deposit in bank account during demonetisation period.
3. Brief facts emerging from records are that the assessee is engaged in the business of trading of cement under the trade name of M/s Sharma cement traders. The assessee has filed a return disclosing total income of Rs.10.26 lakhs, but has not been able to explain the source of cash deposits in bank account and has not produced the cash book for the business carried out and in absence of proper explanation regarding the same, the assessment was completed on a total income of Rs.40.34 lakhs (which included the addition of Rs.30.08 lakhs being the cash deposited in SBN).
4. The matter carried in appeal has been dismissed without adjudication on the merits on the grounds contained in the memorandum of appeal, in absence of any representation or any written submissions being filed, in response to various notices issued from the office of the ld. First appellate authority.
5. Before the tribunal the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that no proper opportunity was allowed by the ld. First appellate authority and aggrieved against the confirmation of addition of Rs.30.08 lakhs.
Assessment Year: 2017-18 3 5.1 He submitted that this is a case of tax audit where audit report u/s 44AB of the Act has been filed which has not been considered and the appeal has been dismissed without adjudicating on merits of the case.
The ld. DR relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the contention of the ld. AR has got no merits because it is apparent from the appellate order that notices issued has been received by the assessee who requested for adjournment on three specific dates and in spite of adjournment being granted no submission has been made which has compelled the appellate authority to dismiss the appeal.
We have heard the rival submission and considered the material on record and we find that notices issued by the ld. First appellate authority has been duly received by the assessee who has prayed for adjournment and in spite of that, no submission has been filed. 7.1 However, in interest of justice, we remand the matter back to the file of the ld. First appellate authority to allow the assessee one more opportunity to file written submissions alongwith the supporting documentary evidence and to file cash book of his cement trading business to properly explain the source of cash (SBN deposited in bank account) to the satisfaction of the first appellate authority), and we direct the assessee to fully cooperate in appeal proceedings for proper disposal.
Assessment Year: 2017-18 4
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 →- Dikshant Nim vs. Union Of INDIAMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Pankaj Patil vs. Branch Manager Hdfc BankMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Rudra Pratap Singh vs. The Union Of INDIAMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Laxman Singh Yadav vs. Bank Of BarodaMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Surendra Singh Rathore vs. Idfc First Bank Through Branch ManagerMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
