MUKESH B. BAJAJ,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER /NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE.DELHI, MUMBAI

Facts

The assessee, engaged in real estate, had cash deposits of Rs. 14,38,000 and term deposits of Rs. 22,00,000 in Kotak Mahindra Bank during FY 2011-12. The Assessing Officer (AO) made additions of Rs. 14,38,000 and Rs. 22,00,000 as unexplained money/investments under Sections 69A and 69 of the Act, respectively, after initiating reassessment proceedings.

Held

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte due to the assessee's non-appearance despite multiple notices. However, considering the principles of natural justice and the assessee's claim of having a good case on merits with supporting evidence, the Tribunal decided to set aside the CIT(A)'s order.

Key Issues

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal ex-parte, and whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present their case with evidence, particularly regarding the additions made under Sections 69 and 69A of the Income Tax Act.