Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's assessment was completed ex-parte under Section 144/147, adding Rs. 25.16 lacs based on cash deposits in a bank account. The assessee claimed the source was from the sale of immovable property, but the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without adjudicating on merits, citing lack of evidence and proper service of notice.
Held
The tribunal found no proof of proper notice service by the CIT(A) and decided to remand the case back to the CIT(A). This allows the assessee another opportunity to provide documentary evidence for the sale of property and explain the cash deposits.
Key Issues
The key legal issues were the validity of ex-parte assessment, the proper service of notice, and the opportunity for the assessee to provide evidence for the source of cash deposits.
Sections Cited
Section 144, Section 147, Section 148, Section 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR
Before: SH. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL & SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT (A) NFAC, Delhi dated 14.09.2023 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (henceforth the Act) which has emanated from the order of the ITO, Ward-3(3), Srinagar dated 08.12.2019 passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. main grievance of the assessee is that the Ld. first appellate authority has not adjudicated the grounds of appeal contained in form 35 on merits of the case and has also disputed service of notice u/s 148.
3. In course of hearing, before the Tribunal, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the assessment in this case has been completed ex-parte u/s 144/147 on a total income of Rs.25.16 lacs, solely on the basis of cash of said amount being deposited in bank by the assessee, and the matter carried in appeal before the ld. first appellate authority has been dismissed without affording any proper opportunity of hearing. He further explained that the source of cash of Rs. 25.16 lacs in bank has arisen out of sale proceeds of immovable property, which is also noted by the ld. first appellate authority in his appellate order, and as such, he prayed that the addition on this count should be deleted on the merits of the case.
The ld. DR relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A) and submitted that no written submissions or documentary evidence of sale of immovable property has been filed neither in course of assessment nor in course of appellate proceedings ( as evident from para 5.3 of the appellate order, in spite of repeated opportunities). In absence of any documentary evidences being produced by the assessee , in support of his contention of sale of immovable property even after numerous opportunities ( and none order.
We have heard the rival submissions and considered the materials on record and we find that that the notices has been issued from the office of the ld. first appellate authority in the ITBA Portal (para 4 of the appellate order) and there is no proof of service of notice through e-mail id of the assessee and as such, in the interest of justice, we are of the opinion that the assessee should be allowed one more opportunity to produce the documentary evidences relating to sale of residential property ( as claimed by the assessee ) and to explain the source of his cash deposit in bank account.
As such, we remand the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to allow the assessee one more opportunity to produce the necessary documentary evidences and we direct the assessee to file necessary submissions and evidences in support of his contention and to fully co-operate in the appellate proceedings.
We have not expressed any opinion on merits of the case and all issues are left open.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in accordance with Rule 34(4) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 as on 09.02.2026