SHRI ANIL ROSHANLAL BAFNA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 27(1), 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 held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without adjudicating the grounds on merits as required. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication after granting a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal challenging an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) due to the assessee's non-appearance. The assessee claims the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without considering the merits and without providing adequate opportunity.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without considering the merits of the case, and if not, whether a fresh opportunity for hearing should be granted.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) Nagpur v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF)159 citing69 Taxmann.com 407 · 2016 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA & SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dated 15/12/2023 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2017-18.
In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds:-
On facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal 2. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld CIT(A) erred in dismissing appeal as the order passed by Ld CIT(A) is not in accordance with the mandate of section 250 of the I T Act as CIT(A) cannot dismiss appeal on account of non-prosecution of appeal by assessee. Reliance is placed on decision of CIT vs Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) 69 taxmann.com 407 Bom. 3. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld CIT(A) erred in passing ex-parte without giving adequate opportunity of being heard to appellant. 4. Without prejudice to other grounds of appeal
, (i) On facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld CIT(A) erred in dismissing appeal without considering merits of addition of Rs 96,50,000/-. (ii) On facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming addition us 69A of Rs 96,50,000/- as unexplained cash deposits as such cash deposits represent cash sale proceeds of ornaments and are duly recorded in books of accounts.The entire such cash sale is supported to proper sale bills.
5. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld CIT(A) erred in passing ex-parte without considering merits of reopening of case us 147 and issue of notice us 148 of the I T Act 1961 as same were not reopened/issued in accordance with the law.
6. The appellant craves leave to consider each of the above ground of appeal as independent and without prejudice to each other and craves leave to add, alter, modify or delete an or all grounds of appeal.”
3. We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record. In the present case, at the outset, it is evident that the learned CIT(A) has passed the order ex-parte due to the non- appearance of/on behalf of the assessee. Now in appeal before us, the assessee is duly represented by the learned AR and wishes to pursue the litigation against the addition made by the AO. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that in the interest of justice, the assessee be granted one more opportunity to represent its case on merits before the learned CIT(A). We further find that the learned CIT(A) merely on the basis of non- compliance of notices, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee without Page | 2 adjudicating the grounds raised by the assessee on merits, as required under section 250(6) of the Act. Consequently, we deem it fit and proper to set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of the learned CIT(A) for de novo adjudication of the appeal on merits after consideration of all the details/submissions as may be filed by the assessee. Needless to mention no order shall be passed without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties. The assessee is directed to appear before the learned CIT(A) on all the dates of hearing as may be fixed without any default. As the matter is being restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, the other grievances raised by the assessee in the present appeal do not call for adjudication at this stage. Accordingly, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 05/06/2024
More judgments on Section 69A
- Vishal Kumar Patel(HUF), Raipur vs DCIT, Circle-1(1), RaipurITA 595/RPR/2026[2017-18]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Ashok Singh, Jaipur vs ACIT, Circle-2 Jaipur, JaipurITA 1540/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Neepaben Sunnybhai Motwani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, RajkotITA 875/RJT/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Ut Corp vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- Sunrise Engineering vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Kalra Traders vs. Union Of INDIAUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Ms Isoft vs. The Commissioner State TaxUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Sita Enterprises vs. Office Of The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026