FATIMA ARIF SIDDHIQUE ,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER -WARD 19(1)(5), 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 observed that the assessee had challenged the additions but was non-compliant throughout the appellate proceedings. However, considering the principles of natural justice, the assessee was granted one more opportunity to present her case before the CIT(A).
What were the facts?
The assessee, an individual, did not file her return of income for AY 2011-12. Her case was reopened due to cash deposits of Rs. 13 lakhs. The Assessing Officer (AO) made a best judgment assessment and added Rs. 13,60,380/- as unexplained cash credit. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's order.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee is entitled to another opportunity to present her case before the CIT(A) on merits, despite non-compliance in previous proceedings?
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 68,Section 250,Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 144,Section 147
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI
O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M:
This appeal has been filed by the assessee, challenging the ex parte order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (‘ld.CIT(A) for short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘NFAC’ for short) passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act'), pertaining to the Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2011-12.
The assessee has challenged the ex parte order of the ld. CIT(A) on the violation of principles of natural justice and has also challenged the addition of Rs.13 lakhs as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act made by the learned Assessing Officer (ld. A.O. for short) and upheld by the ld. CIT(A), along with the other grounds of appeal.
The brief facts are that the assessee is an individual and has not filed her return of income for the year under consideration. The assessee’s case was reopened for the reason that the assessee had made cash deposits of Rs.13 lakhs on 31.03.2011. Notice u/s. 148
(A.Y. 2011-12) Fatima Arif Siddhique vs. AO dated 28.03.2018 of the Act and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served upon the assessee. In response to the notice u/s. 148 of the Act, the assessee filed her return of income dated 07.12.2018, declaring total income at Rs.60,380/-. The ld. A.O. passed the assessment order dated 27.12.2018 u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act on the best judgment assessment for the reason that the assessee has been non compliant and thereby determined the total income at Rs.13,60,380/-as ‘income from other sources’ u/s. 68 of the Act.
Aggrieved the assessee was in appeal before the first appellate authority, challenging the assessment order.
The ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 29.02.2024 upheld the order of the ld.A.O. for the reason that inspite of several opportunity the assessee has failed to substantiate her claim and has been non compliant throughout the appellate proceedings.
The assessee is in appeal before us, challenging the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A).
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. It is observed that the assessee has challenged the additions made by the ld. A.O. before the first appellate authority but has been non compliant throughout the appellate proceeding.
The learned Authorised Representative ('ld. AR' for short) for the assessee contended that the assessee has got a good case on the merits and prayed that the assessee may be given one more opportunity to present her case before the ld. CIT(A).
(A.Y. 2011-12) Fatima Arif Siddhique vs. AO 9. The learned Departmental Representative ('ld.DR' for short) vehemently opposed to setting aside the issue to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for the reason that the assessee was given several opportunity by the ld. CIT(A) which was not availed by the assessee.
On the above factual matrix of the case, we are of the considered view that the assessee may be given one more opportunity to present her case before the first appellate authority by adhering to the principles of natural justice. We, therefore, remand all these issues back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on the merits of the case.
The assessee is directed to comply with the proceedings without any undue delay on her side.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on 31.07.2024
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 →- M/S New Sana Brick Field vs. Union Of INDIA And 4 OthersAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Vinay Singh vs. Union Of INDIAAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Aaradhyam Infrabuilders PVT LTD vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
