SHRI ASHWANI GARG,HARIDWAR vs. ITO, W-1(3)(1), HARDWAR, HARDWAR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The tribunal found that the NFAC had decided the appeal ex parte without independent findings. Therefore, to ensure justice and fair play, the appeal was restored to the NFAC for de novo adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal was delayed by 227 days. The Assessing Officer made additions for cash deposits and estimated net profit under Section 144 and 145(3) respectively. The NFAC dismissed the assessee's appeal for non-prosecution without deciding on merits.
What were the issues?
Whether the NFAC was justified in upholding additions without a decision on merits, and whether the assessee was given a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DEHRADUN BENCH, NEW DELHI
O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.: 1. The appeal in AY 2017-18, arises out of the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. NFAC’, in short] in appeal No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1054390346(1) dated 17.07.2023 against the order of assessment passed u/s 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 26.12.2019 by the Assessing Officer, ITO, Ward-1(3)(1), Hardwar (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’).
At the outset, there is a delay in filing of appeal by the assessee before us by 227 days. Considering the reasons adduced in the condonation petition, we find that the assessee was prevented from sufficient cause in not filing the appeal in time. Accordingly, in the interest of substantial justice, the delay is hereby condoned and appeal of the assessee is admitted and taken up for adjudication.
The first issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the Learned NFAC was justified in upholding the addition of Rs 21,90,500/- made under section 69A read with section 115BBE of the Act on account of cash deposits in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. Further the Learned NFAC had also confirmed the addition of Rs 2,80,000/- towards estimated net profit of the assessee, which is also challenged before us on the ground that the Learned NFAC had not understood the real nature of the transaction.
None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite issuance of notice. Hence we proceed to dispose of this appeal on hearing the Learned DR and based on materials available on record. We find that the Learned AO completed the assessment under Section 144 of the Act on 26-12-2019 adding the sum of Rs. 21,90,000/- on account of cash deposits made in Central Bank of India as unexplained money and further estimating the net profit at the rate of 8% on the business and added a sum of Rs. 2,80,000/- after rejecting the books of accounts in terms of Section 145(3) of the Act. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Learned NFAC. None appeared on behalf of the assessee before the Learned NFAC and the Learned NFAC dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution without independently deciding the issue on merits.
As stated supra, on perusal of the order of the ld NFAC, we find that the ld NFAC had decided the issue ex parte without adjudicating the issue on merits giving its independent finding. Hence, in the interest of justice and fairplay, we deem it fit and appropriate to restore this appeal to file of ld NFAC for de novo adjudication in accordance with law. Needless to mention the assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee is directed to cooperate with ld NFAC for expeditious disposal of the appeal by not taking unwarranted adjournments. Hence, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 02/04/2025.
More judgments on Section 69A
- Vishal Kumar Patel(HUF), Raipur vs DCIT, Circle-1(1), RaipurITA 595/RPR/2026[2017-18]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- 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
- Ashok Singh, Jaipur vs ACIT, Circle-2 Jaipur, JaipurITA 1540/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Neepaben Sunnybhai Motwani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, RajkotITA 875/RJT/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Dirtboot Holidays vs. The Commisssioner Central Goods And Service Tax, New Delhi & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Vandemataram Projects Private Limited vs. Raipur Development AuthorityChhattisgarh · 27 Oct 2026