FLYMANTRA TRIPS PRIVATE LIMITED,ADITYA EAST PARK vs. ITO WARD 5(1)(3), GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard. In the interest of justice and with no objection from the Departmental Representative, the appeal was restored to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment, with a direction to provide adequate opportunity to the assessee.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2017-18, which dismissed the appeal ex-parte without deciding on merits. The original assessment was a best judgment assessment under Section 144, and the assessee raised grounds against additions under Section 69A for demonetized currency deposits and the application of Section 115BBE.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without considering the merits and providing adequate opportunity, necessitating a remand for de novo assessment.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI
PER CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD: JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 07.09.2023 for the assessment
2017-18. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
“1. The CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal and not deciding the grounds of appeal on merits of the case and without allowing sufficient opportunity. Thus, the matter should be remanded back to the CIT(A) to decide the matter on merits after allowing proper and sufficient opportunity to the appellant .
2. Without prejudice to the above ground, the CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs.18,80,950/- u/s 69A of the Act as unexplained money alleging the demonetized currency of the said amount deposited in the regular bank account of the assessee during the relevant period ignoring the facts of the case that the said cash deposit was out of business receipts and also include4d the cash deposited during pre and post demonetization period. Thus, the addition so post demonetization period. Thus, the addition so made should be deleted.
3. Without prejudice to the above ground, the CIT(A) also erred in law and on facts in confirming charge of the income- tax u/s 115 BBE of the Act though there was no undisclosed income attracting the said charge. Thus, necessary directions should be issued to apply correct rate of tax as per the provisions of law if at all necessary.”
At the outset, the learned counsel for the assessee submits that the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax(Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex parte without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard has not adjudicated the issues on merits.
The learned counsel for the assessee further submits that in this case, assessment was completed under Section 144 of the Act as best judgment assessment by the Assessing Officer as the assessee could not comply with the notices issued and the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax(Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex parte without deciding the grounds on merits but for non- compliance by the assessee.
Learned counsel for the assessee requested that the appeal be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment as the assessee could not compile all necessary details requiring for completion of assessment which are all placed in the paper book.
On the other hand, learned Departmental Representative has no serious objection in restoring the appeal to the file of the learned Assessing Officer for de novo assessment.
Heard rival submissions and perused the orders of the authorities below and the material placed before me. In the interest of justice, this appeal is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer to complete the assessment de novo after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
More judgments on Section 69A
- Vishal Kumar Patel(HUF), Raipur vs DCIT, Circle-1(1), RaipurITA 595/RPR/2026[2017-18]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Ashok Singh, Jaipur vs ACIT, Circle-2 Jaipur, JaipurITA 1540/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Neepaben Sunnybhai Motwani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, RajkotITA 875/RJT/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Piyush Shantilal Veera vs. State Of U.P.Allahabad · 23 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Pooja Shri Traders vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1Madras · 23 Oct 2026
- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026
- M/S Barnala Steel Industries Private Limited vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Skd Suppliers Private Limited vs. The Superintendent, Central CGST, Rishra Division, Range-Ii, And AnrCalcutta · 22 Oct 2026
