VIJAIDER SINGH SEN,KULLU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PIRDI KULLU
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's extraordinary health condition that prevented him from presenting his case. Both parties agreed that the impugned order should be set aside and the matter remanded to the Assessing Officer.
What were the facts?
The assessee, an individual taxpayer, failed to attend assessment and appellate proceedings due to severe medical reasons. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for lack of documentary evidence and proper explanation.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal without considering the assessee's medical condition and allowing for the production of additional evidence. Whether the AO was justified in invoking Section 69A for trade and exempt receipts without proper inquiry.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च�ीगढ़ �ायपीठ “बी” , च�ीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “B”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: HYBRID MODE �ी िव�म िसंह यादव, लेखा सद� एवं �ी परेश एम. जोशी, �ाियक सद� BEFORE: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM & SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Shri Vijaider Singh Sen बनाम The ITO C/o Aditya Shawl Industry Pirdi Kullu VPO Shamshi, Tehsil, Bhuntar, H.P �ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ADYPS2199F अपीलाथ�/Appellant ��थ�/Respondent िनधा�रती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Rohit Kumar, ITP and Shri Raman Sharma, CA राज� की ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 23/04/2024 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 02/05/2024 आदेश/Order PER PARESH M. JOSHI, J.M. :
This is an appeal filed by the Assessee who is an individual taxpayer having residential status as that of a person resident in India.
The assessee being aggrieved by DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1054187243(1) dt. 06/07/2023 which was passed by Ld. CIT(A) NFAC Delhi under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The said first appeal was dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore the present second appeal under section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 before us against the aforesaid order dt. 06/07/2018 which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order”
During the relevant assessment year 2011-12 the assessee run a small handloom and handicraft shop at NH21, VPO Shamshi, Dist: Kullu, H.P. He is registered dealer under the VAT Act 2005, having TIN No. 02100200063. The Assessee has filed VAT Return during the F.Y. 2010-11 within time and duly declared all Turnover/Sales. Even the particulars of sales/purchases were inspected by the Assistant Commissioner, State Taxes and Excise Kullu and were found to be correct. Assessment order copy passed by Assistant Commissioner State Taxes & excise is on record. According to the assessee the AO was not justifying for applying under section 69A of act for the trade and other exempt receipts in the Bank accounts since these receipts are pertained to Trading/exempt Receipts and their sources are well equipped with relevant substantial evidences, hence section 69A is unjust and against the principles of natural justice.
The appeal memo at Ground No. 2 it is averred as under: Apologizing me for not attended the assessment Proceedings before the Ld. Assessing Officer Kullu for the A.Y. 2011-12 and due to medical reasons was that I was suffered with sickness. I was affected with herpes zoster and due to such ailment, I was hospitalized in unconscious state of mind at Kullu and thereafter I was referred to PGI Chandigarh again. I am still in the recovery zone Due to illness 1 am not able to attend the online proceedings and not in a position to provide additional documents before the National Faceless Appeals Centre-Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) and the appeal is dismissed and stated that in the absence of any document/ evidence, no separate reasons needs to be recorded by the appellate authority for affirming the order of A.O. and decided that "It is evident that the appellant during the assessment as well as appellate proceedings failed to furnish documentary evidences/ proper explanation in support of his contention”
In appeal memo at Ground No. 3 it is averred as under: Kindly consider my ill heath situations and accept my ITAT appeal application. I had cash credit and otherwise in my bank accounts pertain to my Trading and other exempt receipts. Applying provisions of section 44AD of the IT ACT, my net Taxable income was below threshold limit. I got surprised when I received order of assessment and demand notice. Since I was prevented by sufficient cause from producing these evidences before the learned assessing officer, or the Ld. AO has not conducted any field enquiry regarding my trading. It has been held in a number of cases including in Keshav mills co. Ltd. Vs CIT(1965) 1TR 365(SC) and now recognized as rule 46A that the ITAT appellate Authority has a right to admit the additional evidence in the interest of justice. I therefore requested to accord kind permission for production of certain relevant evidences as they go to the very roof of the matter and involve a substantial cause in determining the correct income and correct tax liability.
We have simultaneously perused the assessment order dated 21/12/2018 of Shri Krishan Lal, ITO, Kullu(H.P) and so also of the Ld. CIT(A).
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 →- Akshaya Consortium vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- 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