THEERTHAKUMARASAMY ELECTRICALS,ERODE vs. ITO, WARD-2(1),, ERODE
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 that both the AO and CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders due to non-compliance by the assessee. The Tribunal, emphasizing the principles of natural justice, decided to provide the assessee with another opportunity to present their case.
What were the facts?
The assessee made substantial cash deposits during the demonetization period but did not file a return of income. The Assessing Officer (AO) assessed the total income under Section 144 of the Act, and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] dismissed the assessee's appeal, stating the source of cash was not explained.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee was provided with sufficient opportunity before the lower authorities and whether the case should be remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration on merits.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & SHRI JAGADISH
आदेश / O R D E R
PER JAGADISH, A.M : Aforesaid appeal filed by the assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18 arises out of the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter “CIT(A)”] dated 27.12.2019 in the matter of assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) dated 27.12.2019.
The assessee has made cash deposits of Rs.12,27,700/- during demonetization period and has not filed return of income. The A.O has issued notice u/s. 148 of the Act which remains not complied and therefore, the A.O has passed order u/s. 144 of the Act assessing total income of Rs. 17,94,300/-. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) has also dismissed the appeal as the assessee has not explained the source of cash deposited during demonetization period.
The Ld. Authorized Representative (A.R) of the assessee before us has contended that sufficient opportunity was not provided to the assessee either before A.O or before Ld. CIT(A) and both the orders have been passed ex-pare and therefore the case may be remitted back to the A.O for fresh consideration in the interest of justice.
The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR), on the other hand, has relied on the orders of lower authorities.
We have heard the rival submissions, and perused the materials available on record. On perusal of the orders of A.O as well as Ld.
CIT(A), we find that the orders have been passed ex-parte for the non- compliance by the assessee. The Ld. A.R has submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has not decided the issue on merits, therefore the case may be remanded back to the A.O for adjudication on merits. We are of the opinion that keeping in view the principles of natural justice, the assessee be provided with another opportunity of hearing to substantiate his case before the A.O. Accordingly, we set aside the orders passed by the A.O and the Ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the A.O to adjudicate this appeal afresh in accordance with law, after giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee. We also direct the Assessee to appear before the A.O on the date of hearing without fail and furnish complete details for his fresh consideration. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 20th December, 2024.
More judgments on Section 148
- 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
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- 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
- M/S Aasha Industries vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Bharat Iron Scrap vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026
