AMAR DEEP GUPTA HOUSE NO 50 DAKKI SARAJIAN PEER MITHA JAMMU,JAMMU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1) JAMMU PANAMA CHOWK JAMMU, JAMMU

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4/ASR/2025Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 November 2025AY 2017-2018Bench: SH. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA (Judicial Member)5 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal observed that the assessee's claimed return of income was not considered by the lower authorities and noted the absence of complete documentary evidence at earlier stages. To serve the interest of justice, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on all grounds, with directions to examine available documentary evidence, verify the filed return of income, and obtain a report from the AO if necessary.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against an ex-parte assessment made under Section 144, which included additions for SBN deposits of Rs. 22.11 lakhs and estimated business profits of Rs. 10.39 lakhs due to non-compliance. The assessee contended that a return of income was filed in response to a Section 142(1) notice but was not taken cognizance of by the Assessing Officer or the CIT(A), and no Section 143(2) notice was issued. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without adjudication on merits, citing the lack of supporting documentation for the claimed readymade garment business.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte assessment and confirmed additions were justified when the assessee's claimed return of income was not considered, and whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without merit adjudication despite the assessee's submissions and evidence of filing.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 144,Section 142(1),Section 143(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR.

Before: SH. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL & SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA

Hearing: 15.10.2025Pronounced: 21.11.2025

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 10.12.2024 which has emanated from the order of AO, Ward 2-(1), Jammu, passed u/s 144 of the Act, vide order dated 26.11.2019.

Assessment Year: 2017-18 2

2.

The assessee has taken nine grounds of appeal

in Form No. 36 and all of them relates to the issue of addition of Rs.22.11 lakhs being the deposit of SBN in bank account and addition of Rs.10.39 lakhs on account of estimated profits determined by the AO @ 8% on bank deposits.

3. Brief facts emerging from records are that the assessee has deposited an amount of Rs.22.11 lakhs (being SBN) in J & K Bank A/c No. xxxxxx12174 and has made a further deposit of Rs.1.29 crores for the entire financial year including the demo period. 3.1 In absence of any return on record notices were issued u/s 142(1) of the Act and on account of non-compliance to such notices and in absence of any response to various correspondence issued from the department, the assessment has been completed ex parte on a total income of Rs.32.50 lakhs (with an addition of Rs.22.11 lakhs on account of SBN deposit and an addition of Rs.10.39 lakhs on account of estimated business profits).

4. The matter carried in appeal before the ld. First appellate authority has been dismissed without adjudication on the merits of the case, by observing that written submissions filed in course of appellate proceedings, narrating the fact that the assessee was carrying on business in readymade garments under the trade name of Radhey Shyam Garments are without any supporting documents to prove existence Assessment Year: 2017-18 3 of his business activity, such as shop license, trade license, purchase and sale register/ invoices and no books of account has been produced by the assessee at any stage. 4.1 It is further observed by the ld. First appellate authority that in absence of any computation of income, and in absence of any documentary evidences, the cash deposits in bank account during demonetisation period could not be satisfactory explained by the assessee, resulting in dismissing of the appeal.

5. Before tribunal, the assessee has filed a short paper book containing copies of reply filed before the ld. first appellate authority, and has submitted that return of income has been filed by the assessee in response to notice u/s 142(1) on 5th May, 2018 disclosing a total income of Rs.4,24,210/- but the said return has not been given any cognizance by the AO. 5.1 The ld. AR of the assessee further agitated that no notice u/s 143(2) has been issued, in response to such return, and he further referred to screen shot taken from the portal to submit that full response to notice u/s 142(1) has been filed but it has not been considered by the AO. He further submitted that the ld. First appellate authority was not justified in confirming the addition without considering all the documentary evidences submitted, in course of appellate proceedings as evident Assessment Year: 2017-18 4 from the e-assessment portal and he prays that all these documentary evidences should be considered alongwith the computation of income for proper adjudication.

6.

The ld. DR relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A) but has no objection if the matter is remanded back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after considering all documentary evidences.

7.

We have heard the rival submission and considered the materials on record and we find that the assessee has submitted a return on 5th May, 2018 in response to notice u/s 142(1) as evident from the screen shot enclosed in paper book (page nos. 10 and 11), but no cognizance of the said return has been given by the AO at the time of framing the assessment and there is no observation in respect of the same by the ld. CIT(A) in his appellate order. 7.1 Moreover, we also note that full documentary evidences like cash book, purchase invoice, sales invoices, and other relevant documents relating to existence of business has not been filed by the assessee before the ld. AO. 7.2 As such, we are of the opinion that interest of justice will be served if the matter is remanded back to the file of the ld. First appellate authority for adjudication on all the grounds contained in form 35 on merits of the case after examining the documentary evidences available before him and also taking into consideration the Assessment Year: 2017-18 5

More judgments on Section 142(1)

All 17,244 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →