MOHIT RAMCHANDANI,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1) , JABALPUR

ITA 8/JAB/2025Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 June 2025AY 2011-12Bench: SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI, NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by passing an ex-parte order without considering the grounds of appeal and violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the case was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee did not file an income tax return, but the Assessing Officer (AO) initiated scrutiny assessment under section 147 based on information about cash deposits. The assessee later filed a return declaring an income of Rs.1,47,390/-. The AO made an addition of Rs.10,14,245/- on account of unexplained cash deposits, assessing the total income at Rs.11,61,640/-.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without adjudicating the grounds of appeal and whether the addition made by the AO was correct.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show 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.

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

Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT & SHRI, NIKHIL CHOUDHARY

For Appellant: Shri Sapan Usrethe, Adv
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 Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Kanpur dated 22.11.2024 pertaining to the assessment year 2011-12. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: -

“1. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) of NFAC New Delhi was not justified in dismissing the appeal on the ground of non submission of reply without appreciating that appellant was prevented with reasonable cause in not filing the reply and even otherwise appellant have sought time for filing the reply and order was passed without giving proper opportunity of hearing.

2.

The learned Com

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 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →