VIMAL CHAUDHARY,ETAWAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ETAWAH
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-responsive conduct but, in the interest of justice, decided to provide a last opportunity. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 1,16,23,990/- under section 69A read with section 115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for AY 2018-19, as the assessee did not respond to notices. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without adjudicating on merits, and whether a last opportunity should be granted to the assessee.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 250,Section 147,Section 69A,Section 115BBE,Section 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA BENCH, AGRA
Before: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH & SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH
ORDER
Per Sunil Kumar Singh, Judicial Member:
This appeal has been preferred by assessee against the impugned order dated 20.11.2024 passed in Appeal no. NFAC/2017-18/10271824 by the Ld. Commissioner of Income– tax(Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”] u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "Act"] for the Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2018-19, wherein learned CIT(A) has dismissed assessee's appeal exparte.
Brief facts state that based on the information in possession of the Assessing Officer that the assessee had deposited cash in current account maintained with Allahabad bank amounting to Rs.1,16,23,990/- and also withdrawn a sum of Rs.7,05,000/- from the same bank account during the year under consideration, assessment u/s. 147 was completed by making addition of aforesaid cash deposited to the tune of Rs.1,16,23,990/- u/s. 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act vide assessment order dated 02.03.2023 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act, as the assessee did not respond to various statutory notices issued by the Assessing Officer.
Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(Appeals) who confirmed the addition made by the learned Assessing Officer and dismissed assessee’s first appeal ex-parte.
None appeared on behalf of the assessee. However, an adjournment application was placed on record, which was rejected. Perused the records and heard learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue, who supported the impugned order.
It transpires from the perusal of records that the assessee did not respond to various notices issued by the learned Assessing Officer. We further notice that the assessee also did not respond to the various notices issued by the first appellate authority on 24.05.2024, 02.07.2024, 12.07.2024 and 11.11.2024. Ld. CIT(Appeals) was thus compelled to pass ex parte 2 | P a g e order. Such irresponsive conduct of the assessee cannot be appreciated.
However, keeping the nature of the proceedings in view and in the interest of justice and fair play, we deem it just and appropriate to afford last opportunity to the assessee and remit the matter back to the file of learned CIT(Appeals) for adjudication on merits. We order accordingly. We further direct the assessee to be diligent and cooperative in attending the hearings and making submissions before the learned CIT(Appeals) for the expeditious and effective disposal. Assessee shall refrain from seeking any adjournment but for compelling and unavoidable reasons. Needless to say that learned CIT(Appeals) shall ensure the observance of the principles of natural justice.
The appeal is liable to be allowed accordingly.
In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. The impugned order dated 20.11.2024 is set aside.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Piyush Shantilal Veera vs. State Of U.P.Allahabad · 23 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Pooja Shri Traders vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1Madras · 23 Oct 2026
- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026
- M/S Barnala Steel Industries Private Limited vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Skd Suppliers Private Limited vs. The Superintendent, Central CGST, Rishra Division, Range-Ii, And AnrCalcutta · 22 Oct 2026
