MAHINDER PARKASH,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 44(1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2097/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 December 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER, SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA (Accountant Member)5 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the assessee's absence from India and financial crisis. It found merit in the assessee's contention that notices were not served due to circumstances beyond his control.

What were the facts?

The assessee, engaged in the business of E-rickshaws, deposited a significant amount of cash during the demonetization period. The Assessing Officer made an addition under Section 68 for unexplained cash credits after the assessee failed to respond to notices, leading to an ex-parte assessment.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessment completed ex-parte without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee to explain cash credits is valid, especially when the assessee was unavailable to receive notices.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘E’ BENCH,

Before: SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA

For Appellant: Shri Krishna K. Baranwal, CA
For Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR
Hearing: 12.11.2025Pronounced: 10.12.2025

PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:-

1.

This appeal by the Revenue is preferred against the order of the NFAC, Delhi dated 19.01.2024 pertaining to A.Y. 2017-18. alongwith an affidavit to substantiate the fact that all the notices sent to him remained undelivered as he was not in India during last few years.

Having perused the affidavit, we find the reasons stated by the ld. counsel for the assessee in the affidavit to be plausible. We, therefore, condone the delay.

3.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee, Mahinder Parkash, was running his proprietorship business in the name of Shree Balaji Enterprises (India). The assessee was the whole seller of E-rickshaw and its parts which was his family business. During the demonetization period in A.Y 2017-18, cash of Rs. 26,46,000/- was deposited in different banks accounts owned by him. Further total amount credited in different bank accounts including above cash deposited, amounted to Rs 7,38,29,227/-.

4.

During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has not furnished his return of income and since the assessee is the owner of the credits made in his bank accounts for which no explanation was furnished and as per the SOPs followed while completing assessment proceedings relating to demonetization cases, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 7,38,29,230/-u/s 68 of the Act in the hands of the assessee. Page 2 of 5 upheld the order of the Assessing Officer.

6.

Aggrieved further, the assessee is in appeal before us.

7.

Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee stated that everything was running good till March-April 2017. However, from May 2017 onwards, business started incurring losses. The assessee failed to meet his loan commitment also. Due to this, his property was seized and recovery proceedings were initiated against him and which is going on. Due to the above facts, the assessee defaulted in filing his return of income. The ld AR stated that there was huge financial crisis and assessee was also not able to file appeal within the stipulated time.

8.

Per contra, the ld. DR relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A).

9.

We have heard the rival submissions and have perused the relevant material on record. We find that the AO has completed the assessment u/s 144 on account of the fact that the assessee did not submit any response in the e-filing portal for online verification of the cash deposit during the demonetization period. The CIT(A) also confirmed the addition in absence of any response coming from the assessee.

Page 3 of 5 assessee’s premises by the Lending Institutions, the notices issued by the AO and the CIT(A) remained unserved and not responded to. We find force in the contentions of the ld. counsel for the assessee that in such circumstances, the assessee may be given an opportunity to explain its case. We are therefore, of the considered view that in the interest of justice and fair play, the issue of substantive addition on account of cash deposit, be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer to adjudicate the matter de-novo. The Assessing Officer is directed to rehear the appeal after affording reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to furnish all necessary documents/evidences called for by the Assessing Officer. The grounds of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. allowed for statistical purposes.

The order is pronounced in the open court on 10.12.2025.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →