RAMESH CHANDRA VERMA,SUNDREL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DHAR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal, agreeing with both parties, decided to remand the case back to the Jurisdictional AO. This is to provide the assessee with an opportunity to present their case and explain the sources of bank deposits, ensuring principles of natural justice.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal was decided ex-parte by the CIT(A) due to non-submission of arguments. The assessee claimed notices were not received physically. The AO had made an addition of Rs. 19,05,500/- under Section 69 for unexplained bank deposits.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee was denied a fair opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A) and AO regarding unexplained bank deposits.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO & SHRI B.M. BIYANI
आदेश / O R D E R
Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:
Feeling aggrieved by appeal-order dated 09.02.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Addl/JCIT(A)-1, Pune [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 12.12.2018 passed by learned ITO, Dhar [“AO”] u/s 144/147 of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2011-12, the assessee has filed this appeal.
On hearing learned Representatives of both sides, it emerges that the CIT(A) has decided first-appeal ex-parte assessee for the reason that the Page 1 of 3
Shri Ramesh Chandra Verma, Sundrel - AY 2011-12 assessee did not make any submission before him despite opportunities given. Ld. AR for assessee submits that the notices of hearing were not sent to assessee in physical mode and therefore the assessee could not make representation before CIT(A) being unaware of hearings fixed by CIT(A). Ld.
AR further submits that the AO has also passed ex-parte order whereby he has made addition of Rs. 19,05,500/- u/s 69 treating the deposits made in assessee’s bank a/cs as unexplained. He submitted that the assessee had sufficient agricultural income and also there were withdrawals from bank a/c which were available for making deposits/re-deposits in bank a/c. He submitted that the assessee has filed additional evidences in Paper-Book to explain these sources. He submitted that the assessee is ready and willing to explain sources of deposits in bank a/cs by means of these additional evidences. Ld. DR for revenue submits that the documents filed by assessee are additional evidences which require examination and verification by Jurisdictional AO [“JAO”]. Therefore, he proposed to remand this case to the level of JAO with a suitable direction to assessee to represent his case before JAO and do not seek unnecessary adjournments. Ld. AR for assessee agrees to the proposal of Ld. DR.
In view of consensus by both sides and also having regard to the principle of natural justice and fair play, we deem it fit to give one more opportunity to assessee so that the assessee can represent his case before JAO for a proper adjudication. Accordingly, we remand this matter back to the file of JAO for a proper adjudication on merit after giving opportunity of Page 2 of 3
Shri Ramesh Chandra Verma, Sundrel - AY 2011-12 hearing to the assessee, uninfluenced by his earlier order in any manner.
The assessee is also directed to ensure participation in the hearings as may be fixed by JAO and do not seek unnecessary adjournments failing which the JAO shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law.
Resultantly, this appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in open court on 29.08.2024.
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
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Namita Behera vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Ratul Boro vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- Jashwant Sharma vs. The Union Of INDIA And A4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Jeyarani Shopping Centre vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer -1/The Deputy Commercial Tax OfficerMadras · 14 Oct 2026
- Rohan Tanna vs. Directorate General Of Goods And Services Tax IntelligenceChhattisgarh · 14 Oct 2026
