Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, Vipin Sharma, did not file an ITR for AY 2017-18, but the AO discovered a cash deposit of Rs. 36,12,900. After reopening the case under sections 147/148, the AO treated the amount as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 due to the assessee's non-compliance. The CIT(A) subsequently dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte without considering the merits.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s ex-parte dismissal without addressing the merits violated Section 250(6) of the Act. Consequently, the Tribunal remanded the entire issue back to the CIT(A) for a fresh examination on merits, directing that the assessee be given a reasonable opportunity to present their case.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte and failing to address the merits of the case; Validity of the assessment of unexplained cash deposits under Section 68 due to the assessee's non-compliance; Compliance with the procedural requirements of Section 250(6) by the appellate authority.
Sections Cited
250, 250(6), 147, 148, 142(1), 68, 144B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, RANCHI
Before: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay
Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vipin Sharma………...................................…...........................……….……Appellant Thana Road Suriya Beside Dayal Bhawan, Suriya, Barki Saraiya, Giridih, Jharkhand – 825320. [PAN: DGJPS4695R] vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Dhn........…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances by: None appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. DR, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : June 19, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order : June 23, 2025 ORDER
Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member:
The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against an order dated 25.10.2024 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’).
No one has appeared on behalf of the assessee in spite of serving notices for hearing and the Tribunal cannot keep this appeal pending for indefinite time due to non-representation. Therefore, in the absence of any authorised representative of the assessee, we proceed to decide the appeal with the assistance of ld. DR and also considering the material available on record.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and has not filed return for the assessment year 2017-18. The Assessing Officer found that the assessee had deposited cash amounting to Rs.36,12,900/- during the relevant assessment year into his bank Vipin Sharma account with Union Bank of India, Suriya Branch. Thereafter, the case of the was reopened u/s 147 by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act and accordingly, notice 142(1) of the Act was also issued asked for details to verify the bank deposits of Rs.36,12,900/- but no response was received from the assessee. Since the assessee failed to substantiate the genuineness of the transaction in his bank account due to non- compliance, the Assessing Officer treated the same as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act of Rs.36,12,900/- completing the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act.
Dissatisfied with the above order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) against the assessment order. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of non-compliance by simply upholding the order of the Assessing Officer.
Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee filed the present appeal before this Tribunal raising various grounds. However, at the time of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee.
The ld. DR supported the decisions rendered by the authorities below.
We, after hearing of the ld. DR and perusing the materials available on record, find that the order of the ld. CIT(A) was passed ex parte since no compliance was made on the part of the assessee. We also find that the order of the ld. CIT(A) was passed without addressing the merit of the case which is contrary to the mandate of section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, in the interests of justice and fair place, we deem it fit to remand the whole issue back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with a direction to re-examine the issues on merits after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee for submitting relevant details or documents to substantiate the claim of the assessee. We also emphasise
In terms of the above, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Kolkata, the 23rd June, 2025.