KAMLESH BHANUSHALI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 22(1) (3), MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication, providing the assessee another opportunity to be heard. The assessee was directed to substantiate his claim, failing which the CIT(A) could decide based on available material.
What were the facts?
The assessee, engaged in trading gunny bags, had his income assessed at Rs. 28,42,640/- for AY 2009-10, a significant increase from his returned income. A major addition was Rs. 25.23 Lacs as cash credit under Section 68 for unexplained cash deposits.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was the addition of unexplained cash credit. The appeal also raised concerns about the principles of natural justice due to the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A).
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JM & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM
���� / O R D E R Per Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member)
The captioned appeal by assessee for Assessment Year [AY] 2009-10 assails the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-33 Kamlesh Bhanushali Assessment Year 2009-10 CIT(A)], Mumbai, Appeal No. CIT(A)-33/IT/197/13-14 dated 31/10/2014. The assessment for impugned AY was framed u/s 143(3) read with Section 147 on 14/03/2013 by Ld. Income Tax Officer Ward-22(1)(3), Mumbai [AO]. None has appeared for assessee despite notice and no adjournment application is on record. Left with no option, we proceed to dispose-off the appeal on the basis of material available on record and after hearing Ld. Departmental Representative [DR]. 2.1 Briefly stated the assessee being resident individual engaged in trading of gunny bags was assessed for impugned AY at Rs.28,42,640/- after certain additions as against returned income of Rs.1,37,657/- filed by the assessee on 30/03/2010. The major addition was addition of cash credit u/s 68 for Rs.25.23 Lacs, being cash deposited by assessee in Savings Account maintained with Bank of India since the same could not be explained by the assessee. 2.2 Aggrieved the assessee contested the same without any success before Ld. CIT(A) vide impugned order dated 31/10/2014 which was an ex- parte order since the hearing notices remained un-served and the assessee did not attend the proceedings. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of Ld. AO on factual matrix. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. The Ld. DR submitted that the assessee was not serious in pursuing his case and therefore, the appeal may be dismissed.
We find that the assessee, in the grounds of appeal, has contested the order of appellate authority on the ground of principles of natural justice.
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 →- M/S Rentex Polymers Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxDelhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Shila Traders vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Ashish Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner Gsto Ward No. 86Delhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bhanwal Trading And Company vs. The Union Of INDIARajasthan · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Saraswati Enterprises vs. State Of RajasthanRajasthan · 28 Oct 2026