GAJENDRA CHAWLA,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT 2(1), BHOPAL
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that both the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) failed to properly consider the assessee's submissions and did not provide adequate opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the matter was remanded back for fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a doctor running a hospital, deposited Rs. 41,21,502 in cash during the demonetised period. The Assessing Officer added this amount as unexplained cash under Section 68, which was upheld by the CIT(A).
What were the issues?
Whether the addition made under Section 68 for unexplained cash was justified without proper consideration of assessee's submissions and adherence to principles of natural justice.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
Before: MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE & SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI
PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER :
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 19.08.2021 passed by the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the Assessment Year 2017-18.
The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under :
“1) In the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. Designated Officer of the National Faceless Appeal Centre erred in sustaining the addition made in the assessment order passed by Ld. AO u/s.143(3) of the Act which is contrary to the material on record and provisions of the Act, unjust and bad ain law.
2) On the facts and circumstances of the case and applicable law, Ld. Designated Officer of the National Faceless Appeal Centre erred in sustaining the addition made by Ld. AO of Rs.41,21,502 on account of unexplained cash u/s. 68.
3) On the facts and circumstances of the case and applicable law, Ld. Designated Officer of the National Faceless Appeal Centre erred in Ind 2021 A.Y. 2017-18 Page 2 of 3 sustaining the addition of Rs.41,21,502/- u/s. 68 on account of unexplained cash without providing sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee and in violation of principles of natural justice.
On the facts and circumstances of the case and applicable law, Ld. Designated Officer of the National Faceless Appeal Centre erred in not considering the submissions in proper perspective.”
The assessee is in medical profession running Hospital under the name Vision Care & Research Centre. The assessee filed its return of income on 30.10.2017 declaring total income at Rs.31,97,260/-. The Assessing Officer held that the assessee failed to substantiate source of cash deposited in bank account during the demonetised period. Thus, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.41,21,502/- as unexplained cash under Section 68 of the Act.
4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee filed two replies to the notices issued under Section 142(1) for which the Assessing Officer has not taken proper cognisance and simplicitor stated that it is insufficient. The CIT(A) has also not served the notices of hearing to the assessee and thus both the revenue authorities as well as appellate authorities have not given proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Therefore, ld. AR requested that the matter may be remanded back for proper adjudication on merit after taking cognisance of the submissions/reply /evidences filed by the assessee.
Ld. D.R. relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A).
We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A) has not taken proper cognisance of the assessee’s submissions and simplicitor without giving any opportunity passed the order and made the addition. Thus, it will be appropriate to remand back the matter in entirety to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction that the assessee’s reply/submissions and evidences will be taken into account and the same may be adjudicated as per due process of law. Needless Ind 2021 A.Y. 2017-18 Page 3 of 3 to say that the assessee be given opportunity of being heard by following the principles of natural justice. Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on this 28th day of June, 2022.
More judgments on Section 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dillip Kumar Behera vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Mayurbhanj CircleOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Tvl.Dev Construction vs. The Proper OfficerMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Abbal Dass Arya vs. Commissioner State Goods And Services Tax CommissionerUttarakhand · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Darbesh Medical Enterprise vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.Calcutta · 15 Oct 2026
- Harinder Singh Rawat vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 14 Oct 2026
