VIKAS SAXENA,JABALPUR vs. ITO WARD 3(3) , SHRINAGAR

PDF

ITA 65/ASR/2024Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 August 2025AY 2011-12Bench: SH. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA (Judicial Member)4 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

Facts

The assessee appealed against an ex-parte order by the CIT(A) which sustained an addition of Rs. 22.20 lacs for a cash deposit in a joint bank account. The assessee contended that the notice for hearing was sent to an incorrect email ID, preventing proper representation, and that the deposited cash represented sale proceeds of two properties belonging to his mother.

Held

The Tribunal noted that the documentary evidence provided by the assessee regarding the source of the cash deposit had not been examined by the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the matter was set aside and remitted back to the AO for fresh assessment, directing proper verification and enquiry into all documentary evidences, while granting the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

Key Issues

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without a proper hearing, and whether the addition of Rs. 22.20 lacs on account of a cash deposit in the bank account was justified without examining the source of funds.

Sections Cited

Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Rule 34(4) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963

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: 04.08.2025Pronounced: 18.08.2025

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT (A) NFAC, Delhi dated 22.12.2023 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which has emanated from the order of the AO, Ward-3(3), Srinagar passed u/s 144/147 of the Act, 1961 dated 07.12.2018.

The assessee has taken four grounds of appeal and the main issue rasied by the assessee is that the appeal has been dismissed without hearing and without adjudicating the grounds of appeal contained in Form-35, on merits of the case by sustaining an addition of Rs.22.20 lacs on account of cash deposit in bank account.

In course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assesee filed a short paper book and submitted that notice of hearing has never been issued in the proper e-mail id stated in Form No. 35 as caasharieshvora@gmail.com. He pointed out that the notice has been issued in a different e-mail id under the name of saxena785@gmail.com. He further submitted that the assessee is medical officer and an ex-employee of Central Reserve Police Force and is mainly posted at different borders of the country and it was not possible for the assessee to have access over his email id and as such he has to rely fully and wholly on his appointed counsel and that is the reason why the email id of the counsel was mentioned in Form No. 35. But in absence of any notices on the said email id, proper representation could not be made.

He further submitted that the assessee and his mother was the holder of a joint bank account with SBI (A/c No. xxxxx13690) and the sale proceeds of two properties were received by mother of the assessee which has been deposited in the said bank account and in support of his contention he has filed copies of registered sale deeds by which such sales has been effected as proof of source of cash deposited in bank A/c.