Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee made a cash deposit of Rs. 21.49 lakhs in his bank account, which he claimed as agricultural income. The Assessing Officer (AO) accepted Rs. 4 lakhs as agricultural income but added Rs. 17.49 lakhs as unexplained and Rs. 4.03 lakhs as salary income. The ld. CIT(A) sustained these additions without providing the assessee a proper opportunity to explain his case.
Held
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) violated the principles of natural justice by not granting the assessee a proper opportunity of hearing and for filing written submissions. Consequently, the matter is remanded back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, with directions to allow the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard and present all necessary documentary evidence.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without granting the assessee proper opportunity of hearing and for filing written submissions, thereby violating principles of natural justice.
Sections Cited
250, 143(3), 147
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR
Before: SH. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL & SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi dated 15.10.2024 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which has emanated from the order of the ITO, Ward-4(2), Amritsar passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, dated 28.12.2018. relates to the issue that proper opportunity of hearing and for filing of written submissions has not been granted by the ld. CIT(A) and the order has been passed without any opportunity to the assessee to explain his case and to make his submission.
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee has made a cash deposit of an amount of Rs.21.49 lakhs in his bank account during the relevant financial year, which has been claimed by the assessee to have been made out of income generated by way of agricultural activities carried out on his own land and also on land owned by his father. Considering the submissions and the Jamabandi records the AO has accepted the agricultural income to the tune of Rs.4 lakhs and has added back the remaining balance of Rs.17.49 lakhs as un-explained and an addition of Rs.4.03 lakhs as salary income (as per reflection in F/26AS).
In course of appeal before the ld. first appellate authority, the additions has been sustained in absence of any representation or any explanation from the assessee in course of proceedings.
Now, in course of hearing before the Tribunal, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the first appellate authority has dismissed the appeal without allowing any opportunity for filing the written submissions and without granting any opportunity of hearing before the ld. first appellate authority.
The ld. DR relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A) but has no objection if the matter is remanded back for fresh adjudication.
We have heard the rival submissions and considered the materials on record and we find that the ld. first appellate authority has not allowed any proper opportunity to the assessee to represent the case and nothing is discussed in the body of the order regarding any submissions filed or any issue of service of notices on the assessee.
As such, we find that the principles of justice has been violated in this case and we remand the matter back to the file of the ld. first appellate authority, to decide the issues on the ground contained in F-35, on merits and to allow opportunity of hearing and the assesse is also directed to submit necessary documentary evidences in support of his contention.
The assessee to be allowed reasonable opportunity of being heard.
We have not expressed any opinion on merits of the case.
Order pronounced in accordance with Rule 34(4) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 as on 28.08.2025.