MAHESH KUMAR SHARMA,BHIND vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 2(1) GWALIOR, GWALIOR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 233/AGR/2025Status: DisposedITAT Agra26 September 2025AY 2019-20Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, while noting the assessee's unresponsiveness, decided to grant one more opportunity to explain the cash deposits. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment after considering the assessee's submissions.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a non-filer, failed to respond to notices regarding unexplained cash deposits of Rs. 1,19,04,250/- in his bank account. The Assessing Officer made a best judgment assessment, and the CIT(Appeals) dismissed the assessee's appeal ex parte.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee should be given another opportunity to explain unexplained cash deposits, despite prior non-compliance, and whether the ex parte orders passed by the lower authorities were justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 115BBE,Section 147,Section 148,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA BENCH, AGRA

Before: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN & SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH

Hearing: 21.08.2025Pronounced: 26.09.2025

ORDER PER : SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal has been preferred by assessee against the impugned order dated 26.02.2025 passed in Appeal No. NFAC/2018-19/10330543 by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2019-20, wherein the ld. CIT(Appeals) has dismissed assessee’s first appeal exparte.

2.

Brief facts state that the assessee is a non-filer. Based on the information available with the department that the assessee had made cash deposits including deposits through bearer’s cheque in his current account with Central Bank of India, amounting to Rs.1,19,04,250/-, the Assessing Officer initiated proceedings u/s. 147 and issued notice u/s. 148 of the Act, which remained un-responded. Thereafter, several statutory notices were issued, but for no avail. Hence, the Assessing Officer added and assessed total income of Rs. 1,19,04,250/- u/s. 69A r.w.s 115BBE, vide assessment order dated 21.02.2024 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 and 144B of the Act.

3.

Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before ld. CIT(Appeals), who dismissed assessee’s first appeal ex parte.

4.

This second appeal has been filed on the ground, in addition to others on merits, that the impugned order is liable to be set aside, having not been passed in accordance with section 250(6) of the Act without providing proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

5.

Perused the records. Heard ld. Representative for assessee and ld. DR for revenue.

6.

Learned AR, though initially prayed to remand the matter back to the ld. CIT(Appeals) in accordance with ground No. 1 of the appeal, but at the later stage of the arguments, it was has vehemently submitted that the assessment order too was passed u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act for want of any submission on behalf of the assessee to explain the source 2 | P a g e of impugned deposits in the bank account. He, therefore, corrected his arguments and prayed to remand the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer to provide one more opportunity to the appellant assessee to explain and verify the cash deposits in the bank account.

7.

Learned DR has supported the orders of authorities below.

8.

It transpires from the perusal of the assessment order that due to irresponsive conduct of the assessee, learned Assessing Officer was compelled to pass best judgment assessment u/s. 144 of the Act.

Similarly, ld. CIT(Appeals) was also compelled to pass ex parte impugned order due to non-submission on behalf of the assessee despite various notices dated 07.10.2024, 28.10.2024, 21.11.2024 and 05.02.2025 issued to the appellant assessee. Such an irresponsive and reluctant conduct of the assessee is unacceptable, however, in the totality of facts and circumstances and in the interest of justice, we deem it just and proper to afford an opportunity to the appellant assessee to make his submissions and explain impugned cash deposits before the Assessing Officer. The matter is thus remitted back to the file of Assessing Officer for passing order afresh in accordance with law after taking assessee’s submissions into consideration. We further direct the assessee to be diligent and cooperative in attending the proceedings and making submissions before the learned Assessing Officer for the 3 | P a g e expeditious and effective disposal. Needless to say that learned Assessing Officer shall ensure the observance of the principles of natural justice.

9.

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. The impugned order dated 26.02.2025 and assessment order dated 21.02.2024 stand set aside.

Order pronounced in the open court on 26.09.2025.

More judgments on Section 69A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →