ASHWANI KUMAR SOOD ,VPO NAUSHEHRA PANNUAN vs. ITO WARD 1, TARN TARAN, ITO WARD TARN TARAN
Facts
The assessee's case was selected for scrutiny due to cash deposits, leading to an addition of Rs. 51,90,412 by the AO. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal ex parte, confirming the addition, as the assessee failed to substantiate the source of cash deposits with proper documentation.
Held
The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order for de novo adjudication, noting that the assessee did not receive proper notice for the appellate proceedings. The tribunal directed the CIT(A) to provide a fresh opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
Key Issues
The key legal issues are whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex parte order without proper notice to the assessee and the validity of the addition made by the AO due to unsubstantiated cash deposits.
Sections Cited
Section 250, Section 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR.
Before: DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE & SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER (Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 337/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sh. Ashwani Kumar Sood, VPO, Vs. ITO, Ward-1, Naushehra Pannuan, Tarn Taran, Tarn taran. Punjab. [PAN:-BQVPS2633H] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Rajiv Kumar o/o Sh. Ashwani Kalia, CA. Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. DR. Respondent by
Date of Hearing 16.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement 17.03.2026
ORDER Per: DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, A.M.: This is an appeal filed by the Assessee directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi, dated 27.09.2023 u/s 250 of the Act 1961, emanating from the order u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 29.12.2017, for the Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Assessee raised the following grounds of appeal:
I.T.A. No. 337/Asr/2023 2 Assessment Year: 2015-16
“1. That the Id. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has erred in law and on facts in framing the order ex parte without giving proper opportunity to the assessee. 2. That the Id. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs.5190412 made by the AO to the returned income. 3. That the Id. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition absolutely without appreciating the facts of the case. 4. That the order framed by CIT(A), NFAC is bad in law and on facts. 5. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend the ground of appeal before the appeal is heard and disposed off.”
Mr. Ashwani Kalia, Chartered Accountant had filed a letter requesting for adjournment, stating that he had to go out to attend a family function. 4. It is noted that on 22.04.2025, the ld. AR had sought adjournment on the ground that he has appointment with US Embassy for Visa on 20th April. It is important that hearing was scheduled on 22.04.2025. On 10th August 2025, ld. AR sought adjournment on the plea that he was outside Amritsar. On 21st August, 2025 ld. AR sought adjournment on the plea that he was outside Amritsar. On 5th February 2026, ld. AR sought time on the plea that he wants to file certain papers. It can be observed that ld. AR has sought repeated adjournment on one plea or another in these backgrounds today’s ld. AR’s request for adjournment was rejected.
I.T.A. No. 337/Asr/2023 3 Assessment Year: 2015-16
We heard the ld. DR. Ld. DR supported the order of the AO. Findings and Analysis 6. The assessee filed return of income electronically on 31.07.2017, declaring total income at Rs.2,18,660/-. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny to verify the cash deposit. As per assessment order, assessee is in the business of ‘cable network and liquid cheese’. During the proceedings, the assessee filed submission however, AO made addition of Rs.51,90,412/-. 7. Aggrieved by the assessment order, assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) issued three notices and dismissed the case by observing as under: “7.0 I have given my thoughtful consideration to the issue under dispute and found that the AO made the impugned addition based on proper appreciation of factual matrix of the case. 7.1 As seen from the facts of the case, in the return of income filed for the year under consideration, assessee neither declared the Profit/loss from the cheese business nor declared the relevant bank account. However, subsequently, in order to explain the sources for cash deposits made during the demonetization period, the assessee filed an unsigned trading and P&L account on the basis of undeclared bank account. As the assessee failed to substantiate his claim with supporting documentary evidence such as books of accounts, purchase and sale bills and bills and
I.T.A. No. 337/Asr/2023 4 Assessment Year: 2015-16
vouchers for expenses, I am of the considered opinion that the AO rightly made the impugned addition of Rs. 51,90,412/- 7.2 Further, even during the course of present appellate proceedings, the assessee has failed to rebut the findings of the AO. Under the circumstances, in the absence of any details or documentary evidence forthcoming from the assessee, I am of the considered opinion that the AO rightly made the impugned addition of Rs. 51,90,412/- warranting no interference of the appellate authority. Thus, the Grounds raised by the assessee on this issue are dismissed.” 8. The assessee has filed written submission wherein assessee has stated as under: “The above said appeal is against the order of ld. CIT(A) which was framed expartie without giving proper opportunity to the assessee. The notices for fixation of the appeal by the ld. CIT(A) were Issued at the email id of CA Raman Bajwa who was earlier looking after the case before the lower authorities at his email id: caramanbajwa89@yahoo.in. Copy of notices are enclosed. We are submitting herewith Form No35 filed before CIT(A) wherein the email given is that of kallaashwani@yahoo.in which is email id of the undersigned who had filed the appeal before CIT(A) with specifically mentioning the above said email address kaliaashwani@yahoo.in. Thus, no notice was received by the undersigned.”
I.T.A. No. 337/Asr/2023 5 Assessment Year: 2015-16
It can be observed that ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee without discussing each and every ground raised by the assessee. 9.1 However, it is also noted that the notices issued by the ld. CIT(A) were not received by the assessee, therefore, assessee could not comply to those notices. In the facts and circumstances of the case, and in the interest of justice, we set aside the order to the ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. We also direct the assessee to file all necessary documents before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) shall provide opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Accordingly, ground of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 10. We have not expressed any opinion on merits and all legal issues are left open. 11. The appeal is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced on 17.03.2026 in the open Court.
Sd/- Sd/- (UDAYAN DASGUPTA) (DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE) Judicial Member Accountant Member AKV Copy of the order forwarded to: (1)The Appellant (2) The Respondent (3) The CIT (4)The DR, I.T.A.T. True Copy By order
