ASHU KUMAR JAIN,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-10(3), HYDERABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the merits of the case were not discussed. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, providing the assessee with another opportunity to be heard.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed his return of income, and the case was selected for scrutiny due to large cash deposits during the demonetization period. The Assessing Officer rejected the assessee's explanation, and the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution as the assessee neither appeared nor filed evidence.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without discussing the merits of the case. Whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present their case.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- CIT v. B.N. Bhattacharjee151 citing10 CTR 354 · 1979 · SC · Read judgment
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘SMC‘ Bench, Hyderabad
Before: Shri Manjunatha, G.
आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘SMC‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri Manjunatha, G. Accountant Member आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.743/Hyd/2024 (िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Ashu Kumar Jain Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 10(3) PAN:ACJPJ9269R Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा��रती �ारा/Assessee by: Shri Kumar Patel Tated, CA राज� व �ारा/Revenue by:: Shri K.N. Suresh Babu, DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 29/08/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 02/09/2024 आदेश/ORDER
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 06/06/2024 of the learned CIT (A)-NFAC Delhi, relating to A.Y.2017-18.
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee Shri Ashu Kumar Jain derives income from other sources and capital gains and filed his return of income for the Asst. Year 2017-18 by admitting a total income of Rs.3,74,050/- and long term capital gain income of Rs.2,33,580/-. Later the case was converted into
Page 1 of 4 scrutiny as per CASS provisions which specifies to examine the following: “Large value cash deposits during demonetization period as compared to return income. Large value cash deposits during demonetization period. Large cash deposits compared to returned income. High value receipt of cash shown from third parties in response data”.
2.1 Subsequently statutory notices u/s 143(2), 142(1) and reminder show cause notice were issued. In response to the notices, the assessee has filed requisite information, but the Assessing Officer rejected the explanation furnished by the assessee.
Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT (A). Before the learned CIT (A), the assessee neither appeared nor filed any evidences though the appeal was posted for hearing on 5 occasions. Therefore, the learned CIT (A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee for non-prosecution of the appeal by following certain judicial precedents including the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.N. Bhattacharjee & Others (1979) 10 CTR 354(S.C).
I have heard both the parties, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. I find that the learned CIT (A) not discussed the issue on merit with necessary reasons. Therefore, to give another opportunity of hearing to the assessee, the order passed by the learned CIT (A) is set aside and the appeal is restored back to the file of the learned CIT (A) for fresh adjudication. The learned CIT (A) is directed to reconsider the issue after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Needless to say assessee is hereby directed to appear and file all the requisite details before the learned CIT (A). The assessee is also directed to pay a nominal cost of Rs.2000/- at the State Legal Aide Authorities at the Hon'ble Telangana High Court and furnish necessary proof within 30 days to the Registry, ITAT, Hyderabad from the date of this order.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
More judgments on Section 142(1)
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Subhash Chand Saini, Jaipur vs ITO Ward, Behror, BherorITA 36/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Venish Vinodray Lalani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, MorbiITA 197/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Gaurav Jiteshbhai Joshi, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1000/RJT/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026
- M/S Barnala Steel Industries Private Limited vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Skd Suppliers Private Limited vs. The Superintendent, Central CGST, Rishra Division, Range-Ii, And AnrCalcutta · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Aasha Industries vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Bharat Iron Scrap vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026