RAMU GATATI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD 10(1), HYDERABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not discuss or decide the merits of the appeal, having dismissed it due to lack of representation. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after affording the assessee an opportunity to be heard and present documents.
What were the facts?
The assessee declared a turnover of Rs. 1,97,24,536, but had cash deposits of Rs. 5,11,66,005, resulting in an excess of Rs. 3,14,41,469. The Assessing Officer added this excess as unexplained money under Section 69A. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal for non-prosecution and on merits.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal without considering the merits and affording sufficient opportunity. Whether the bank deposits constitute business turnover and if Section 69A is attracted.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 69A,Section 147,Section 144,Section 142(1),Section 115BBE
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES “B” , HYDERABAD
Before: SHRI R.K. PANDA & SHRI LALIET KUMAR
O R D E R PER LALIET KUMAR, J.M.
This appeal is filed by the assessee, feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 11.01.2024 for the AY 2017-18 on the following grounds :
2. The grounds raised by the assessee reads as under :
“1. In the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in holding that the assessee did not want to pursue the appeal and dismissing the appeal on that ground.
In the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) ought not to have dismissed the appeal without giving sufficient opportunity.
3. In the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered that the bank deposits constitute the business turnover of the appellant.
4. In the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered that the assessee was doing retail business in the vegetables and the turn over reflected in the P&L account relates to his retail business, the bulk business and commission business on vegetables.
5. In the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered the provisions of 69A are not attracted.”
Facts of the case, in brief, are that assessee, who is an individual, had declared turnover of Rs.1,97,24,536/-, whereas it was found that the total cash deposit in banks amount to Rs.5,11,66,005/- thus, there was excess cash deposit of Rs.3,14,41,469/-. Hence, the case was reopened and notice u/s 148 was issued on 26/03/2021. Thereafter, a reminder notice u/s 142(1) was issued on 13/09/2021 fixing compliance date on 28/09/2021 but assessee failed to comply. As the assessee was non responsive, a final opportunity on alternate email was also given to the assessee on 23/12/2021 and 03/01/2022 wherein it was clearly mentioned that in case of non-compliance the assessment will be completed on ex parte basis u/s 144 of the I.T. Act. Finally, due to non-compliance on part of assessee even after issuance of show cause notice dt.18.01.2022, Assessing Officer has no option but to finalize the order as per show cause notice. As the assessee failed to explain the source of deposit of the cash, the same was being added as unexplained money u/s 69A to be taxed under the special provision of section 115BBE. Thus, Assessing Officer completed the assessment interalia making addition of Rs.3,14,41,469/- u/s 69A of the Act and passed order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act on 14.03.2022.
Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the assessing officer, assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, who dismissed the appeal of assessee on account of non-prosecution and on merits.
Feeling aggrieved with the order of ld.CIT(A), assessee is now in appeal before us.
Before us, ld.AR submitted that the assessee has failed to provide necessary information and appear before the lower authorities. Hence, the ld. AR requested the Bench to remand the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer. Ld.AR further submitted that as the assessee has sufficient cause from putting in appearance before the ld.CIT(A), matter may kindly be remitted back to the authorities below for afresh adjudication.
Per contra, the ld.DR has not raised any objection for remanding the matter back to the file of lower authorities.
8 We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on record and also the order passed by the lower authorities. On perusal of the impugned order passed by ld.CIT(A), we found that ld.CIT(A) passed an order confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in his assessment framed on 14.03.2022. The merits of the assessee’s appeal before the ld.CIT(A) have neither been discussed nor decided by the ld.CIT(A). From page 10 of the order of ld.CIT(A), it is clear that ld.CIT(A) was forced to decide the appeal on the basis of material available on record, as there was no representation on behalf of the assessee. In view of the above reasons, in our view, the ends of justice will be met if the matter is remanded back to the file of ld.CIT(A) with a direction to decide the issue after considering the documents available on record and affording the opportunities of hearing to the assessee in accordance with law subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) in favour of Prime Minister National Relief Fund which shall be payable within one month or from the date of receipt of this order or whichever is earlier.
The assessee shall be at liberty to file documents, if any, as required for proving his case and the ld.CIT(A) shall consider the evidences, if any, filed by the assessee. Needless to say the ld.CIT(A) shall examine those documents / evidence filed by the assessee and also the other documents available on record. After considering the documents filed by the assessee and the submissions made by the assessee, the ld.CIT(A) shall pass a detailed speaking order dealing with the contentions of the assessee. We have not adjudicated the other grounds on merits as we are setting aside the orders passed by the lower authorities to the file of ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Thus, the grounds of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 19th March, 2024.
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 →- Sutlej Textiles And Industries Limited vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S. Ut Corp vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- Sunrise Engineering vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Kalra Traders vs. Union Of INDIAUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Ms Isoft vs. The Commissioner State TaxUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
