VOS TECHNOLOGIES INDIA P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 26(4), NEW DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order and that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal concerns an addition of Rs. 1,12,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 for cash deposits during demonetization, which was confirmed by the CIT(A). The assessee argued that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without following principles of natural justice.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without providing the assessee with a proper opportunity of being heard, and whether the addition under Section 68 was justified.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- CIT v. S. Chennaiappa Mudaliar (1969) SC (591) and Balaji Steel Re-rolling Mills v. Commissioner Excise & Customs5 citing52 Taxmann.com 107 · 2014 · SC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘H’ : NEW DELHI
ASSESSEE BY : Shri Akshit Goel, CA REVENUE BY : Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 13.09.2023 Date of Order : 18.09.2023
ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld.
CIT (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) dated 20.02.2023 pertaining to the assessment year 2017-18. 2. Grounds of appeal taken by the assessee read as under :-
“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) u/ s 250 of the Act is bad both in the eye of law and on facts. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld. CIT(A) has erred in passing the Ex-parte order. The CIT(A) has not followed the Rules of natural justice.
3. That the assessee filed an adjournment application on 25.01.2023 on the E-proceeding portal seeking adjournment until 09.02.2023 and wanted further adjournment for submissions, however, the E-proceeding portal did not accept the assessee's request; meanwhile, Ex-parte was passed by the ld. CIT(A) without allowing the assessee to be heard.
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deciding the appeal Ex-parte without deciding the appeal on merits as laid down in CIT v. S. Chennaiappa Mudaliar (1969) SC (591) and Balaji Steel Re- rolling Mills v. Commissioner Excise & Customs (2014) 52 taxmann.com 107 (SC) case.
That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in confirming addition u/ s 68 of the Act without appreciating that provisions of Section 68 are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case.
That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.1,12,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act without appreciating that provisions of Section 68 are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case since the Appellant has already accounted for income represented by cash deposited in the bank and therefore, same cannot be considered as undisclosed income in terms of Section 68 of the Act.
On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT has erred both in facts and in law in charging the tax under section 115BBE of the Act as provisions of section 68 are not applicable, therefore, provisions of section 115BBE could not be invoked.”
In this case, Assessing Officer made addition under cash credit for the cash deposit during demonetization period amounting to Rs.1,12,00,000/-. Upon assessee’s appeal, ld. CIT (A) confirmed the addition. ./2023 4. Against this order, assessee is in appeal before us. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. 5. Ld. Counsel of the assessee stated that ld. CIT (A) has given a notice dated 18.01.2023 for compliance on 25.01.2023. The assessee had given adjournment petition which was ignored. Hence, assessee’s counsel pleaded that the matter may be restored to the AO to enable the assessee to canvass the case properly along with certain additional evidences which have now come into the possession of the assessee. 6. Per contra, ld. DR for the Revenue did not have any objection to the above proposition. 7. Upon careful consideration, we remit the issue to the file of AO. AO shall consider the issue de novo after giving the assessee proper opportunity of being heard. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on this 18th day of September, 2023.
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 →- M/S. Ut Corp vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- Sunrise Engineering vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Kalra Traders vs. Union Of INDIAUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Ms Isoft vs. The Commissioner State TaxUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Sita Enterprises vs. Office Of The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
