Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an ITR for AY 2017-18, and the case was selected for scrutiny due to cash deposits made during the demonetization period, leading to an addition of Rs. 36,27,334/- under Section 68 for unexplained cash deposits. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte on 19.09.2024 after the assessee repeatedly sought adjournments.
Held
The Tribunal remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in the interest of justice. It directed the CIT(A) to provide an adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who is also instructed to make all requisite compliances.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition under Section 68 without providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
Sections Cited
250, 68
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY & SMT. RENU JAUHRI
Assessee by : Ms Kavita Nabera on behalf of K.C. Jain & Co. Revenue by : Shri Ram Krishn Kedia Date of Hearing 31.12.2024 Date of Pronouncement 31.12.2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER RENU JAUHRI [A.M.] :- This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Mumbai-48/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated 19.09.2024 passed u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] for Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2017-18.
The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:
1. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law the Id. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of Id. A.O. in passing the impugned order, without providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
A.Y. 2017-18 Sureshkumar Ghewarchand Hundia 2. On the facts and circumstances of Appellant's case and in law the Id. CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of the Id. A.O. in making an addition of Rs. 3,62,63,334/-, by treating the same as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act, for the reasons mentioned in the impugned order or otherwise.
The appellant craves leaves to alter, amend, withdraw or substitute any ground or grounds or to add any new ground or grounds of appeal on or before the hearing.”
3. Brief facts of the case are that the return declaring income of Rs. 11,88,410/- was filed on 24.10.2017. The case was selected for limited scrutiny to verify the cash deposits made during the demonetization period. The assessment was finalized at an income of Rs. 3,74,51,740/- after making addition of Rs. 36,27,334/- on account of unexplained cash deposits u/s 68 of the Act.
4. Aggrieved with the order, the assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). During the course of appellate proceedings, several notices were issued to the assessee. However, the assessee sought adjournment every time, hence, the Ld. CIT(A) proceeded to decide the appeal exparte and dismissed the appeal of the assessee vide order dated 19.09.2024. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us.
5. At the outset, it was submitted by the Ld. AR that an adequate opportunity of being heard was not given to the assessee by the Ld. CIT(A). It was, therefore, requested that the matter may be remanded back for a fresh adjudication by Ld. CIT(A). Ld. DR has agreed to the proposition of the assessee.
A.Y. 2017-18 Sureshkumar Ghewarchand Hundia 6. After considering the rival submissions, we deem it appropriate to remand the case to the Ld. CIT(A) in the interest of the justice. Needless to say that an adequate opportunity should be provided to the assessee and the assessee is also directed to make requisite compliance before Ld. CIT(A). 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 31.12.2024.