K. ADIRAJAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-4(1), CHENNAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without adjudicating the issue on merits, violating principles of natural justice. The matter was set aside and remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee deposited Rs. 33,00,000/- in cash into his bank account, claiming it as savings and funds from his wife and daughters. The Assessing Officer made an addition as the explanation was not accepted. The CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without providing adequate opportunity of hearing and adjudicating the appeal on merits.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY & 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 06.06.2024 in the matter of assessment framed by the Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act,1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) on 14.12.2019.
When the appeal was taken up for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee and accordingly, the hearing was proceeded with the able assistance of Ld. D.R.
The only effective ground of appeal in this appeal of assessee is against the order of Ld. CIT(A) passing ex-parte order in confirming the addition on cash deposits of Rs. 33,00,000/- u/s. 69 of the Act without giving adequate opportunity of being heard.
The assessee is an individual and has deposited cash of Rs.33,00,000/- in his saving bank account with Central Bank of India, Washermenpet Branch, Chennai. The assessee has explained the source of cash deposit as Rs. 29,00,000/- belonging to his wife and daughters and Rs. 4,00,000/- savings of his own . The assessee further explained that he has given five challans in the name of K.
Adhirajan Rs. 4,00,000/-, R. Shanthi Rs. 8,00,000/-, R. Jeeva Rs.
7,00,000/-, R. Mahalakshmi Rs. 8,00,000/- & R. Devi Rs. 6,00,000/- to the Manager of Central Bank of India, Washermenpet Branch, Chennai to be deposited in their respective account, but the bank Manager had deposited in his account only. The A.O has not accepted the explanation as the return of income of his wife and daughters were not sufficient to explain the cash deposit and made the addition. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) passed ex-parte order without discussing the merits of the case. The Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal holding that the assessee is not interested in completing the appeal proceedings and therefore, appeal is dismissed.
We have perused the materials available on record and find that the orders of Ld. CIT(A) is ex-parte without discussing the issue on merits which is not in consonance to section 250(6) of the Act. As per Section 250(6) of the Act, the Ld. CIT(A) is required to adjudicate the issue arising in the appeal on merit by stating the points for determination the decision thereon and the reason for the decision.
We are of the opinion that keeping in view of the principles of natural justice, the assessee be provided with another opportunity of hearing to substantiate his case before the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate this appeal afresh in accordance with law. We also direct the assessee to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) on the date of hearing without fail. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 04th December, 2024.
More judgments on Section 69
- Azure Knowledge Corporation Private… vs The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), AhmedabadITA 2013/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Naresh Chandra Khattar, Agra vs ITO Ward-1(1)(2), AgraITA 475/AGR/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Ranchhodbhai Kurjibhai Kakadiya, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 553/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Gorantla Rahul Kumar, Visakhapatnam vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 670/VIZ/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Gorantla Rahul Kumar, Visakhapatnam vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 669/VIZ/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S B.K. Agency Under The Proprietor Of Bhola Prasad vs. The Chief Commissioner, CGSTPatna · 2 Nov 2026
- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026