RAVINDER KUMAR JAIN PROPRIETOR MS VARDHMAN CUT PIECE ,BHATINDA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had sent notices to an incorrect email ID, leading to the assessee's non-appearance. The CIT(A) also failed to decide the appeal on merits. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
During a survey, the assessee surrendered Rs. 40,00,000/- as business income. The Assessing Officer later treated this surrender as unexplained income under Section 69B and taxed it under Section 115BBE. The CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without proper service of notice and without deciding the appeal on merits.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CHANDIGARH BENCH, ‘B’, CHANDIGARH
Before: DR KRINWANT SAHAY & SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI
Appeal in this case has been filed by the Assessee against the order dated 05.09.2023 of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Ludhiana [herein referred to as ’the CIT(A)].
2. Grounds of appeal in this case are as under: -
674-Chd-2023 Ravinder Kumar Jain, Bhatinda 2
That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5 has erred in passing the ex-parte order and, thereafter, confirming the addition as made by the Ld. Assessing Officer.
2. That no notice of hearing was served/sent to the assessee and all the notices were sent on the email.id as nitishgars_l984@rediffmail.com, which was not majorly in operation, whereas the correct email.id as given on Form No.35 was btigargitr@gmail.com and, as such, non-attended to the hearings.
That, though, it was intimated to the assessee for hearing on 29.05.2023, for which, the adjournment was sought by the assessee and the last notice, which was fixed for hearing on 04.09.2023, no notice was served upon on the assessee and it was again sent on the non- functional email.id of the counsel, who did not intimate the assessee about the hearing.
4. That further, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in not deciding the appeal on merits on the basis of facts on record and, thus, it is prayed that the case may, please be set aside to the file the Worthy CIT(A) for deciding the issue on merits.
5. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard or disposed off.
3 Brief facts of the case are discussed as under:-
674-Chd-2023 Ravinder Kumar Jain, Bhatinda 3 1. This is a case of an assessee who is an individual and deals in manufacturing and trading of school uniforms and other accessories of difference schools.
A survey u/s 133A of the Act has been conducted at the business premises of the assessee on 17.02.2017.
3. During the course of survey, a total excess stock of Rs.37,62,602/- has been identified along with some other incriminating documents and in order to avoid prolonged litigation and earn peace of mind, the assessee surrendered business income of Rs. 40,00,000/-.
The same has been disclosed in the P/L Account as business income and taxes due on the same has been paid.
5. However, the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 148 and the assessment order has been passed by treating the said surrender income as deemed unexplained income u/s 69B and the same has been charged to tax as per the provisions of section 115BBE.
4. At the very outset, during the proceedings before us, ld. Counsel for the Assessee brought it on record that total of 09 notices were sent by the ld. CIT(A) to the Assessee and all the notices were sent on wrong e.mail id. The ld. Counsel further stated that the reasons for non- appearance was due to the fact that the Counsel of the Assessee while filing the appeal had provided his own e.mail id but all the notices by the CIT(A)’s office was sent on the e.mail id of the earlier counsel, therefore, the Assessee could not comply with the Order. The ld.
674-Chd-2023 Ravinder Kumar Jain, Bhatinda 4 Counsel further submitted that apart from sending notices on the wrong e.mail id, the ld. CIT(A) has not discussed the issue on merit and thus, has not passed the order on merit. Therefore, he requested that the appeal may be remanded back to the ld. CIT(A).
The Department had filed adjournment application, which was rejected.
We have considered the submissions of the ld. Counsel for the Assessee and we find that all the 09 notices sent by the CIT(A) was sent on the e.mail id of the earlier counsel of the Assessee, i.e., nitish_garg1984@rediffmail.com whereas, while filing the appeal, the present Counsel of the Assessee has given his own e.mail id, i.e., btigargitr@gmail.com. We find that no notice had been sent on the e.mail id of the present counsel. We also find that the ld. CIT(A) has not passed the order on merit on the basis of material available on record, therefore, we are of the considered view that to meet the end of justice, the matter should be remanded back to the CIT(A). Accordingly, keeping in view the principles of natural justice, the appeal is restored back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for adjudication afresh on merits, in accordance with law, on affording due and adequate opportunity of hearing to the Assessee. The Assessee, no doubt, shall cooperate in the fresh proceedings before the CIT(A). All pleas available under the law shall remain so available to the assessee. Ordered accordingly.
674-Chd-2023 Ravinder Kumar Jain, Bhatinda 5
In the result, for statistical purposes, the appeal of the Assessee stands allowed. Order pronounced on 02.07.2024.
More judgments on Section 69B
- Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax… vs M/S Rajguru Foods, BijapurITA 77/PAN/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Alka Ajit Shah, Mumbai vs Income Tax Officer Ward 20(1)(1), MumbaiITA 1915/MUM/2026[2011-12]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2011-12
- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax… vs Rama Krishna Jewellers Private Limited…ITA 1289/DEL/2026[2017-2018]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2017-2018
- Front Line Guards Private Limited, Navi… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward 14(1)(1)…ITA 7909/MUM/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2020-21
- Haripa Industries, Kolkata vs ITO, Central Circle 4(1), KolkataITA 2283/KOL/2026[2019-2020]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2019-2020
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- K Madhusudan Reddy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Sandeep Ranjan Rout vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Gagan Bihari Rout@Gagan Rout vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Biswanath Rana vs. The Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Sushama Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
