ASHOK VATS,GURGAON vs. ITO, GURGAON
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that explanations and documentary evidence were not considered by the revenue authorities. Therefore, the issues were set aside to the AO for fresh consideration.
What were the facts?
The assessee appealed against an addition of Rs. 43,87,572/- made by the AO on account of cash deposited in the bank. The assessee also raised an issue regarding the non-decision of a ground related to disallowance of deduction under Section 80D.
What were the issues?
Whether the revenue authorities failed to consider the assessee's explanations and documentary evidence for cash deposits and deduction under Section 80D.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC-2’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI H. S. SIDHU
PER H.S. SIDHU, JM ORDER This appeal is filed by assessee against the order dated 5.11.2014 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-Faridabad relating to Assessment Year 2011-12 on the following grounds:-
Ground No. 1 : Whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts of the case in confirming the addition foRs. 43,87,572/- made by the AO on account of cash deposited in bank by the assessee.
Ground No. 2 : Whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts of the case in not deciding the ground of appeal relating to disallowance of deduction u/s. 80D amounting to Rs. 2,434/- made by the AO.
Ground No. 3 : The assessee may please be allowed to add/ delete/ alter / modify any ground of appeal.
Facts narrated by the revenue authorities are not disputed by the Ld. A.R. of the assessee, hence, the same are not repeated here for the sake of convenience.
Notice of hearing was sent to both the parties and in response to the same none appeared on behalf of the Department, nor any application for adjournment has been filed by the Department. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of the considered view that no useful purpose would be served to serve the notice again and again to the Department, therefore, I am deciding this Appeal as Exparte qua Department, after hearing the Ld. Counsel of the assessee and perusing the records.
At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel of the assessee has stated that assessee is having all the documentary evidence for substantiating his claim, but the Revenue authorities has not given the sufficient opportunity to the assessee for substantiating the claim before it. Ld. AR of the assessee further stated that AO has completed the assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and made the addition. Similarly, the Ld. CIT(A) has upheld the addition made by the AO by holding that the assessee did not furnish any explanation during the assessment proceedings as well as appellate proceedings which is contrary to the facts and law. In fact the assessee has given the explanation with the documentary evidence for substantiating the claim, but the same has not been considered by the Revenue Authorities. He requested that the issue in dispute may be set aside to the file of the AO for fresh consideration and for substantiating the claim of the assessee. Ld. Counsel of the assessee also undertakes that assessee will fully cooperate in the assessment proceedings and will not take any unnecessary adjournment.
I have heard the Ld. Counsel of the assessee and considered the submissions made by him. I find considerable cogency in the contention raised by the Ld. Counsel of the assessee that assessee has given the explanation with the documentary evidences for substantiating the claim, but the same has not been considered by the Revenue Authorities which is not permissible under the law. Therefore, in the interest of justice, I set aside the issues in dispute to the file of the AO for fresh consideration, as per law, after considering all the documentary evidences. However, the assessee is directed to fully cooperate with the AO during the proceedings before him and not to take any unnecessary adjournment in the case and also produce all the necessary evidences before the AO to substantiate his claim.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.
More judgments on Section 80D
- Gaurav Jiteshbhai Joshi, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1000/RJT/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Mukesh Mishra, Thane vs ACIT, Circle 1, ThaneITA 5853/MUM/2026[2020-2021]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2020-2021
- Ramesh Kumar Agarwal, Kolkata vs I.T.O., Ward - 45(1), KolkataITA 172/KOL/2026[2017-2018]Status: Disposed24 Sept 2026AY 2017-2018
- Krunalbhai Kanubhai Patel, Gandhinagar vs The ITO, Ward-1, GandhinagarITA 212/AHD/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed22 Sept 2026AY 2020-21
- Kalaiyarasan Rajangam Mudaliar, Ahmedabad vs Assessing Officer, AhmedabadITA 2669/AHD/2025[2022-23]Status: Disposed22 Sept 2026AY 2022-23
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Commissioner/Additional Commissioner Of Central Tax vs. M/S INDIA Agro Exports Private LimitedKarnataka · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Shivam Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 28 Oct 2026