RAMAN VIRMANI,DEHRADUN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2)(2), DEHRADUN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 94/DDN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun14 August 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, provided one more opportunity to the assessee to submit evidence. The matter was set aside and remanded back to the AO for fresh consideration after providing a reasonable opportunity.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to produce necessary details like vouchers and cash book before the CIT(A), leading to additions on account of cash deposits during demonetization. The assessment order was also passed ex-parte due to the assessee's non-participation.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was provided with a sufficient opportunity to present evidence for cash deposits during demonetization and whether the ex-parte assessment order was justified.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DEHRADUN BENCH: DEHRADUN

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Gupta, CA
For Respondent: Shri Aman Pal Singh, JCIT-DR
Hearing: 07/08/2025Pronounced: 14/08/2025

(ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18) Income Tax Officer, Raman Virmani, Ward-1(2)(2). 185 Karanpur, Vs. Dehradun. Dehradun, Uttarakhand-248001. PAN-ARKPR4271R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Saurabh Gupta, CA Department by Shri Aman Pal Singh, JCIT-DR Date of Hearing 07/08/2025 Date of Pronouncement 14/08/2025 O R D E R

PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM:

1.

This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (‘the Ld. CIT(A)’ for short) dated 07.05.2025 for Assessment Year 2017-18.

2.

At the outset, from the perusal of the records, it is seen that assessee though filed certain submissions before the Ld. CIT(A), however in para 6.1 of the appellate order, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that assessee has failed to produce the necessary details like vouchers for purchase and sales and the cash book, therefore, the additions made by the AO on account of cash deposit in the bank account in SBN during demonetization period could not be verified.

Raman Virmani vs. ITO Further from the perusal of the assessment order, it is seen that the assessment order was passed ex-parte as the assessee filed to participate in the assessment proceedings.

3.

Considering these facts and in the interest of justice, in our considered opinion, one more opportunity needs to be provided to the assessee so that he could be able to file all the necessary evidences in support of the claim made. Accordingly, we set aside both the orders of the lower authorities and the remand back the matter to the file of AO for fresh consideration. The AO is directed to pass the assessment order denovo afresh after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee and assessee is also directed to participate in the assessment proceedings before the AO and file all the relevant evidences to support of the contention raised with regard to the source of cash deposit during demonetization in SBN. Accordingly, grounds of appeal

No.1 of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

4. Since, we have already remand back the matter to the file of AO, therefore, other grounds of appeal are not adjudicated.

5. In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court 14.08.2025.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →