BHOLARAM MALVIYA,MUMBAI vs. ITO, MUMBAI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that notices were sent to an unrelated email, leading to non-compliance. The appeal was dismissed ex-parte, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh notice and decision on merits after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed a return declaring total income at Rs. 3,92,830/-. The assessment was completed at Rs. 5,78,92,830/- with an addition of Rs. 5,75,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash credits. The assessee's appeal was dismissed due to non-compliance with notices.
What were the issues?
Whether the ex-parte dismissal of the appeal by the CIT(A) was justified, given that notices were sent to an incorrect email address, and whether the reassessment proceedings were valid.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 68,Section 142(1),Section 147,Section 148,Section 150(1),Section 151,Section 234A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: SMT. BEENA PILLAI & SMT. RENU JAUHRI
Appellant by : Shri Niral Mangla Respondent by : Shri Paresh Deshpande Date of Hearing 07.10.2024 Date of Pronouncement 22.10.2024 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)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated 19.04.2024 passed u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] for Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2014-15.
The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:
“1. That the assessment order passed by Ld. AO as well as appellate order passed by Ld. CIT(A) are bad in law and are passed in contravention of prevailing law as well as facts of the case, therefore liable to be annulled.
2. That the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in law and in facts of the case in issuing notices of hearing on some unrelated email and ex-party dismissal of appeal of assessee without allowing proper opportunity of being heard.
That the reassessment proceedings initiation u/s 148 of the Act on the basis of directions of Ld. CIT(A) u/s 150(1) of the Act is not tenable as the directions issued by Ld. CIT(A) are already quashed by Hon'ble ITAT in the appellate proceedings in the case of assessee for Α.Υ. 2013-14.
That the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO u/s 147 of the Act is void- ab-initio and not tenable under the law because of being passed without providing copies of reasons recorded for reopening and the approval obtained u/s 151 of the Act.
That the Ld. AO grossly erred in law and in facts of the case in holding Rs. 5,75,00,000/- as unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act.
6. That the Ld. AO grossly erred in taking the total income of the appellant at Rs. 11,57,85,660/- as against the assessed income of Rs. 5,78,92,830/- i.e. twice the assessed income and computed tax liability thereupon.
That the Ld. AO has grossly erred on facts as well as in law in charging excessive interest under Section 234A of the Act despite the fact that the ITR for the year under consideration was filed by the assessee on 30/03/2017.
That the appellant craves the leave to add, substitute, modify, delete or amend all or any ground of appeal either before or during the hearing.”
3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed return in response to the notice u/s 142(1) on 30.03.2017 declaring total income at Rs. 3,92,830/-. The assessment was completed at an income of Rs. 5,78,92,830/- by making addition of Rs. 5,75,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act, after treating the loans as non-genuine. The appeal of the assessee was dismissed on the ground that the assessee had made no compliance to various notices issued during the course of appellate proceedings.
4. Before us, Ld. AR has pointed out that the exparte order of the Ld. CIT(A) deserves to be set aside as notices were sent to some unrelated email, due to which no compliance could be made during the appellate proceedings.
5. We have heard the rival submissions. Since the appeal has been dismissed exparte, we hereby restore the same to Ld. CIT(A) with the directions to issue a fresh notice and pass the order on merits after due opportunity of being heard has been given to the assessee. Assessee is also directed to make available correct email to the office of the Ld. CIT(A).
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 22.10.2024.
More judgments on Section 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Shri Yaras Suresh Babu Prabhu Kumar vs. The Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026
- Santa Singh vs. SuperintendentUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Azaad Builders vs. Assistant Commissioner SGSTUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Shadab Malik vs. State Of U.P. And 2 OthersAllahabad · 26 Oct 2026
- Salman vs. State Of U.P.Allahabad · 26 Oct 2026
