THE AERTRIP,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 17(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 noted that the assessee made no compliance to the notices and the orders passed by the AO and CIT(A) were ex-parte. The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for fresh decision.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal against an order by NFAC Delhi for assessment year 2017-18. The assessee had not complied with notices from the AO, leading to the AO treating cash deposits as unexplained. The CIT(A) also passed an ex-parte order due to non-compliance.
What were the issues?
Whether the ex-parte orders passed by the lower authorities were justified due to non-compliance by the assessee and whether the matter should be restored for fresh adjudication.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A‘ BENCH
आदेश / O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against order dated 04/10/2022 passed by NFAC Delhi for the quantum of assessment passed u/s.144 for A.Y.2017-18.
In the grounds of appeal assessee has raised following grounds:-
M/s. The Aertrip “1.(a) Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred in passing the order exparte & dismissing appeal on 04-10-2023 though Notice of hearing given fixing the date of hearing on 09- 10-2023. (b) Ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred in violating principles of natural justice in as much in spite of fixing the hearing on 09-10-2023 passed order exparte on 04-10-2023. (c) The appellant humbly submit that Id.CIT(A) ought to have given proper opportunity of hearing.
2. Learned Commission of Income Tax(Appeals) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 1,09,35,100/- on account of cash deposit.
Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred is disallowing expenses of Rs.5,00,000/- 3. At the outset it is noted that, even before the ld. AO that assessee had not made any compliance to the various notices sent by e-mail on jainassociate@yahoo.co.in. The ld. AO without any response from the assessee treated the cash deposits of Rs.1,09,35,100/- u/s.69A in the bank account as unexplained. Before the ld. CIT (A) also various notices of hearing were fixed and except for genuine request dated 28/07/2023 there has been no compliance on part of the assessee. The ld. Counsel before us has stated that last date of notice when assessee has sought for adjournment, the same was adjourned to 09/10/2023, however, ld. CIT (A) has passed the order on 04/10/2023. He thus, requested that matter should be restored back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to decide afresh.
M/s. The Aertrip 4. On the other hand ld. DR submitted that the assessee had nowhere responded before the ld.AO which is evident from the notices sent on various dates as mentioned in page 2 & 3 of the assessment order including the final show-cause notice. Thus, assessee has not given any explanation regarding the cash deposits. In any case he submitted that if the issue is to be set aside then it should be set aside to the file of the ld. AO so that he can enquire about the explanations and evidences filed by the assessee.
After considering the orders of the ld. AO and ld. CIT(A), we find that assessee has made no compliance to any of the notices sent, which ld. Counsel submitted that notices were sent through e-mail of the Chartered Accountant and assessee was not aware of the proceedings date. Hence, left with no option both ld. AO and ld. CIT(A) have passed exparte order. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we restore this issue to the file of the ld. AO. However at the time of hearing we announced that we will impose cost on the assessee for not making any compliance and wasting the time and efforts of the department. Accordingly, we impose the cost of Rs.10,000/- on the assessee for non-complying with the notices and not assisting the authorities below for proper assessment. Accordingly, we set aside the case to the file of the ld. AO to decide the issue of cash deposits afresh on the grounds raised before us, subject to deposit of cost of Rs.10,000/-. Accordingly, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 30th April, 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
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Sahoo Supply Agency,Balasore vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs,New DelhiOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S Jyoti Consultants, Agrahat vs. Pr. Commissioner GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, BhubaneswarOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S. Sahoo Supply Agency vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And CustomsOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- Gopal Aromatic PVT. LTD., Cuttack vs. Union Of INDIAOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S. Nourangi Paints vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 2 Nov 2026