RAHMAN SHAH,CHHINDWARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD CHHINDWARA, CHHINDWARA

ITA 175/JAB/2024Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 June 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not provide adequate opportunity to the assessee. The CIT(A) should have sought clarification regarding the inconsistency in the assessee's stance and conducted inquiries, especially since the assessment was protective and Mahesh Soni had claimed the deposits.

What were the facts?

The Revenue received information about cash deposits of Rs. 30,00,000 in the assessee's bank account during demonetization. The assessee was a non-filer, and further notices did not yield compliance. Bank statements revealed significant cash deposits and withdrawals, and the account was a joint account with Mahesh Soni. Mahesh Soni claimed the deposits and offered them for taxation.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without granting a proper opportunity of hearing, and whether the addition made on a protective basis is sustainable.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 144,Section 131,Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JABALPUR BENCH, JABALPUR

Hearing: 20.05.2025Pronounced: 30.06.2025

PER NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, A.M. This is an appeal filed against the order of the learned CIT(A) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961 wherein the learned CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee that was filed against the order of the ITO-Ward 1, Chhindwara under section 144 of the Act dated 30.10.2019. The grounds of appeal are under:- “1. That the learned AO as well as CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case making ex party order. The assessee did not received any communication regarding the hearing of the appeal. The assessee is denied opportunity of hearing. The order should be set-aside.

2.

The addition of Rs. 60,00,000/- is illegal unjustified. It is fully covered but the

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 131

All 4,706 judgments and leading authorities on Section 131 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →