SHANKAR PRASAD GUPTA,KOLKATA vs. A.O., CIR. 29, KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the orders were passed ex-parte and that the issue of unexplained cash deposits required fresh examination. The case was set aside to the AO for a de novo assessment after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal was against ex-parte orders passed by the AO and CIT(A) for AY 2017-18. The assessee claimed non-receipt of notices led to non-appearance, and the addition of Rs. 36,01,753/- as unexplained cash credit was made without sufficient evidence.
What were the issues?
Whether ex-parte assessment orders passed without proper notice to the assessee are valid, and if the addition of unexplained cash credit requires fresh examination.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH: KOLKATA
Before: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumar]
ORDER / आदेश Per Rajesh Kumar, AM: This is the appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 01.02.2024 for AY 2017-18.
At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessment as well as appellate orders were framed ex-parte when the assessee did not appear before the authorities below. The Ld. Counsel submitted that the non-appearance was not Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shankar Prasad Gupta attributable to the failure of the assessee as a matter of fact the assessee did not receive any notice and therefore could not appear to attend the proceedings before either of the authorities. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the addition made by the AO of Rs. 36,01,753/- as unexplained cash credit on account of cash deposits which could not be explained by the assessee and was added without there being documents or evidences on record. The Ld. A.R therefore prayed that the appeal of the assessee may kindly be restored to the file of AO so that the assessee gets one more opportunity to present his case before the AO and the assessment is framed de novo after taking into account the contentions of the assessee.
The Ld. D.R on the other hand relied on the authorities below by submitting that the assessee did not appear before either of the authorities despite granting several opportunities however left the issue to the wisdom of the bench.
After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the material on record, we find that the orders of AO as well as Ld. CIT(A) were passed ex-parte. We note that the addition made by the AO was on account of unexplained cash deposits which were made on the basis of facts available before the AO. In our opinion, the issue is required to be examined at the level of AO afresh in the light of the evidences and arguments which the Counsel of the assessee may furnish before the AO to well serve the ends of justice. Accordingly, we set aside the order to the file of AO to decide the issue afresh after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order is pronounced in the open court on 20th November, 2024
Sd/- Sd/- (Rajpal Yadav /राजपाल यादव) (Rajesh Kumar/राजेश कुमार) Vice-President/उपा�य� Accountant Member/लेखा सद�य Dated: 20th November, 2024 SM, Sr. PS Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shankar Prasad Gupta Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant- Shankar Prasad Gupta, 239, Roy Bahadur Road, Behala, Kolkata- 700053 2. Respondent – AO, Circle-29, Kolkata 3. Ld. CIT(A)- NFAC, Delhi 4. Ld. PCIT- , Kolkata 5. DR, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata (sent through e-mail)
More judgments on Section 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Gagan Bihari Rout@Gagan Rout vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Biswanath Rana vs. The Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Sushama Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Saudamini Samantray vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar IiOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Keshav Rice Mill, Ganjam vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, KatakaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026