SH. BABU SINGH S/O SH. KUNDA SINGH,FATEHABAD vs. PR. CIT, ROHTAK
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order was ex-parte and that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the matter was restored to the PCIT for fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee, an individual engaged in agricultural activities, had deposited Rs. 47,00,000/- in his bank account. The Assessing Officer (AO) completed the assessment accepting the returned income. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) initiated revision proceedings under Section 263, but the assessee did not file a reply or seek adjournment.
What were the issues?
Whether the PCIT was justified in revising the assessment order without providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CHANDIGARH
Before: SHRI A.D.JAIN & SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY
आदेश/ORDER
PER A.D.JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT
This is assessee's appeal for assessment year 2012-13 against the order dated 09.02.2022 passed by the ld. Pr.
Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak [in short ‘the PCIT’].
The assessee has raised the following ground of appeal:
“That the CIT was not justified in revising the order dated 22.11.2019 on the ground that the A.O. failed to make necessary and proper enquiry about deposit of cash in the bank account whereas as per the Assessee all the necessary documents justifying cash deposits in the bank account were submitted by the assessee and were duly considered by the AO.”
ITA 342/CHD/2022 A.Y.2012-13 2 3. The facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual doing agricultural activities. No return of income was originally filed by the assessee. Since the assessee had deposited a sum of Rs.47,00,000/- in his savings bank account, the case was reopened u/s 147 of the Act vide notice u/s 148 of the Act, dated 29.03.2019. In compliance, the assessee filed the Income Tax Return, declaring an income of Rs.1,33,450/- + Agricultural income of Rs.8,54,752/-, on 21.11.2019. Consequently, assessment was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 22.11.2019, accepting the returned income. The ld. PCIT, being not satisfied with the order of the AO, issued notice u/s 263 of the Act to the assessee, to explain the sources of the cash deposited in the bank account. In response to the notice dated 27.10.2021 issued u/s 263 of the Act, no reply was filed by the assessee, nor any adjournment was sought.
The case was re-fixed for 28.01.2022 vide letter dated 21.01.2022, but on that date also, no written submission or adjournment request was received. Accordingly, the ld. PCIT set aside the assessment order passed by the AO on 22.11.2019. Against the said order of the ld. PCIT, the assessee has come up in appeal before this Tribunal.
ITA 342/CHD/2022 A.Y.2012-13 3 4. We have heard the parties and have perused the material on record. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to the impugned order of the ld.PCIT to submit that the same is an ex-parte order. He has submitted that the ld.PCIT has summarily rejected the application of the assessee without giving any opportunity of hearing to the assessee to present his case. He has submitted that no notice of the date of hearing was served on the assessee, either through the physical mode, or through e-mail, etc. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has requested that the assessee may be given proper and adequate opportunity of being heard to present his case.
The ld. DR has relied on the order of the ld. PCIT.
Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it fit and appropriate that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be provided a reasonable and proper opportunity of being heard. Accordingly, the file is restored to the file of the ld. PCIT to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee, no doubt, shall cooperate in the fresh proceedings before the ld. PCIT. All
ITA 342/CHD/2022 A.Y.2012-13 4 pleas available under the law shall remain so available to the assessee.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 09.05.2024.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Ritik vs. State Of M.P.Madhya Pradesh · 16 Oct 2026
- Venkadeswara Grill Works vs. The Joint Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
