SANJAY GUPTA,GONDA vs. ITO, GONDA-NEW
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal, noting the assessee's non-compliance, granted one more opportunity to present the case before the Assessing Officer in the interest of substantial justice.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an income tax return, but due to non-compliance, the assessment was completed at a higher income. The assessee's subsequent appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) also due to non-compliance.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present their case before the Assessing Officer after repeated non-compliance leading to dismissal of appeal.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW BENCH “SMC”, LUCKNOW
Before: SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA
O R D E R
This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against order dated 31.10.2023 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeal), Delhi for the Assessment Year 2017-18.
The brief facts of the case are that the e-return of income for the captioned year was filed declaring total income at Rs.2,88,340/-. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny through CASS. The assessment was completed u/s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’) at a total income of Rs.11,84,860 /- as there was non-compliance by the assessee during the assessment proceedings.
Aggrieved, the assessee approached the ld. First Appellate Authority challenging the said addition. However, again, there was no compliance by the assessee and, therefore, the appeal of the assessee came to be dismissed by the ld. CIT(A). 4. Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the dismissal of his appeal by the CIT(A) by raising the following grounds of appeal:
“1. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) has erred in law and on facts in passing the order, which is unlawful, unjustified and against the principles of natural justice.
2. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) has erred in law and on facts in passing the order without giving adequate opportunity of being heard 3. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) has erred in law and on facts in passing the order without taking cognizance of documents on record and treating cash deposits of Rs. 5,68,500/- during demonetization as unexplained cash credit u/s 69A of Income-tax Act and computing tax liability on the same u/s 115BBE of Income- tax Act 4. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) has erred in law and on facts and made the intangible addition of net profit of Rs. 328024/-, whereas Assessee books of accounts had duly audited by chartered accountants.
5. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in passing assessment order which is contrary to the facts and law.”
The Ld. A.R. prayed that one more opportunity may be afforded to the assessee so as to enable him to present his case before the Assessing Officer (AO).
The ld. D.R. had no objection to the restoration of appeal to the file of the AO.
I have heard both the parties and have also perused the material on record. It is evident that there was complete non compliance on the part of the assessee during the course of first appellate proceedings. However, looking into the facts of this case, I am of the considered view that the assessee deserves one more opportunity to present his case and, therefore, in the interest of substantial justice, I restore this file to the Office of the AO with the direction to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to present his case and I also caution the assessee to fully comply with the directions of the AO in the set-aside proceedings when called upon to do so, failing which, the AO shall be at complete liberty to pass the order in accordance with law, based on material available on record even if it is ex-parte qua the assessee.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.
(Order pronounced in the open court on 29/04/2024)
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 →- Mufti Clothing And Co vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- U Days Garments vs. The Adjudication OfficerMadras · 16 Oct 2026
- M/S Jsw Cement Limited,Jajpur vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sreeshobi Enterprises vs. The Appellate AuthorityMadras · 16 Oct 2026
- S.T.Promotors vs. The Commercial Tax OfficerMadras · 16 Oct 2026
