BAL KRISHNA GROVER,KATNI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1, KATNI

ITA 55/JAB/2024Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 June 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI, NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte without adjudicating on the merits of the case. The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) ought to have examined all aspects and decided the grounds raised by the assessee. Principles of natural justice require the assessee to be given adequate opportunity and for the grounds to be decided by a speaking order.

What were the facts?

The assessee, engaged in liquor trading and hotel business, declared an income of Rs. 5,87,910/- for AY 2017-18. The case was selected for scrutiny due to "Cash deposit during demonization period." The Assessing Officer (AO) treated cash deposits of Rs. 11,64,836/- as unexplained and estimated net profit at 2% of total turnover, leading to an addition of Rs. 10,92,007/-.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal ex-parte without considering the merits and affording adequate opportunity to the assessee; and whether the additions made by the AO were justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 145(3),Section 143(3),Section 69

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JABALPUR BENCH “DB”, JABALPUR

Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT & SHRI, NIKHIL CHOUDHARY

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Bardia, FCA
For Respondent: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. CIT(DR)

PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.:

This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 22.02.2024 pertaining to the assessment year 2017-18. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: -

“1. The order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is bad in law and facts, void ab initio and without juri iction.

2.

The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and facts of the case in sustaining the addition of Rs.11,64,838/- u/s 69A against cash deposited during the demonetization period.

3.

The Ld. CIT Appeals erred in

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 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →