ZAMEER SHAIK,ADILABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, ADILABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal, considering the principles of natural justice and the assessee's claim of not receiving notices, set aside the order of the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to grant one last opportunity to the assessee to present their case with documentary evidence.
What were the facts?
The assessee, engaged in a chicken centre business, filed a return for AY 2017-18. The case was selected for limited scrutiny due to large cash deposits. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 1,71,46,857/- u/s 69A due to the assessee's non-compliance and failure to explain credits.
What were the issues?
Whether the lower authorities followed the principles of natural justice by ensuring proper service of notices and whether the assessee should be granted an opportunity to explain the credits in their bank account.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘B‘ Bench, Hyderabad
Before: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 19/02/2014 of the learned CIT (A)-NFAC Delhi, relating to A.Y.2017-18.
The grounds raised by the assessee read as under:
Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is engaged in the business of chicken centre, filed his return of income for the A.Y 2017-18 on 23.11.2019 declaring total income of Rs.3,72,810/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS to verify “Large Cash deposits made in bank account during the year”. Statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued and served on the assessee to furnish evidence by 26.09.2018. Thereafter, several notices were issued to the assessee to which neither the responded nor appeared before the Assessing Officer.
Since due to continuous non-compliance of the assessee and the assessee failed to explain large credits in his bank account, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment by making an addition of Rs.1,71,46,857/- u/s 69A of the I.T. Act, 1961.
3. In appeal, the learned CIT (A) NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground of non-compliance from the side of the assessee despite granting ample opportunities to the assessee.
Aggrieved with such order of the learned CIT (A) the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the lower authorities has not followed the principles of natural justice since the notices issued by the authorities were not received by the assessee and only after getting the notices, the assessee came to know from the Tax Consultant that huge addition of Rs.1,71,46,857/- u/s 69A of the Act was demanded from the assessee. It is the submission of the assessee, that if given an opportunity, the assessee would be in a position to explain the details with documentary evidence before the learned CIT (A) NFAC to substantiate his case and to the satisfaction of the CIT (A).
The learned DR, on the other hand, submitted that despite giving sufficient opportunities, the assessee failed to comply with the notices issued by the authorities below. Hence the grounds raised by the assessee should be dismissed and the orders of the learned CIT (A) NFAC should be upheld.
We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the material available on record. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the assessee that the learned CIT (A) NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee without going into the merits of the case. In fact, the assessee was not received the notices sent by the Department. If given an opportunity, the assessee would be in a position to explain its case with documentary evidence before the learned CIT (A) NFAC. Considering the totality of the facts of case and in the interest of natural justice, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal of the assessee should be set aside to the file of the learned CIT (A) NFAC for fresh adjudication. The learned CIT (A) NFAC is directed to grant one last opportunity to the assessee to explain its case with proper documentary evidence. The assessee is also hereby directed to appear before the learned CIT (A) NFAC with necessary details/evidence on the appointed date and time without seeking any adjournment under any pretext. We hold and direct accordingly.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
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 →- Kamlasana Impex Private Limited vs. Director General Of GST Intelligence (Hq) Delhi) & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Ritu Gautam Proprietor Of Ms Heritage International vs. Additional Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax Appeals Ii Delhi & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Sutha vs. The State Tax Officer(Inspection-3)Madras · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sri Satya Sai Constructions vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- Anisha Busa vs. Sibar Institute Of Dental SciencesAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026