MAHAVEER BHASKARRAO KADAM,BARSHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, SOLAPUR, SOLAPUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without any finding on merit. Since the CIT(A) did not consider the assessee's submissions, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was decided ex-parte without considering submissions and evidence. The assessee argued that the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order and requested an opportunity to represent the matter.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without considering the assessee's submissions and evidence. Whether the addition made by the AO under Section 68 was justified.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC” PUNE (THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING
Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT & SHRI SS VISWANETHRA RAVI
This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 10.11.2023 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2016-17, raising following grounds:
1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Id. CIT(A) erred in passing an exparte order and the appellant prays for an opportunity to represent the matter before the CIT(4) 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Id. CIT(A) erred in passing an exparte order without considering the submission and evidences filed in the course of physical hearing before the CIT(A)
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Assessing Officer erred in making addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Assessing Officer erred in making addition in respect of unsecured loan us 68 withot taking cognizance of the fact that the loan has been received through banking channels and repaid by the appellant in subsequent year 5. The above grounds of appeal
may kindly be allowed to be altered, amended, modified, deleted ete in the interest of natural justice.
2. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the impugned order passed is ex-parte qua the assessee, without considering submissions of the assessee, which were filed before migration of the appeal for faceless proceedings. The Ld. counsel accordingly prayed for restoring the appeal back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for deciding afresh.
3. We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the relevant material on record. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed the order ex-parte without any finding on merit of the grounds raised by the assessee. Under the provisions of section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’), the Ld. CIT(A) is required to pass order on merit even in absence of representation by the assessee. The Ld. counsel appeared before us has given an undertaking that if matter is restored back, the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) shall be complied by the assessee. Since, the Ld. CIT(A) has not given any finding on the merit of the issue and not considered submission of the assessee, therefore, we feel it appropriate to restore the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding afresh after taking into consideration submissions of the assessee. We order accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
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 →- Dipanshu Aggarwal vs. Director General Of GST IntelligenceDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Dezinetree Projects PVT. LTD. vs. Spokes Digital Inc And AnrDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Jaydeep Jayantilal Hudaka vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 28 Oct 2026
- Commissioner/Additional Commissioner Of Central Tax vs. M/S INDIA Agro Exports Private LimitedKarnataka · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026