SURAT,DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-27, NEW DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that no prejudice would be caused to the revenue by giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) to adjudicate the issues on merits.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeals were dismissed ex-parte by the CIT(A) due to non-compliance with notices. The assessee claimed unavoidable personal contingencies prevented their appearance and requested an opportunity to be heard.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in passing an ex-parte order without providing an adequate opportunity of being heard, and whether the additions made on account of cash deposits and estimated net profit were valid.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI
Before: Dr. B. R. R. KumarSh. Yogesh Kumar US
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member:
The present appeals have been filed by the assessee against the orders of ld. CIT(A)-29, New Delhi dated 17.12.2021 and 17.01.2022.
Since, the issue involved in both the appeals are similar, they were heard together and being adjudicated by a common order.
In , the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
“1. That the order passed by CIT (A) - 29, New Delhi is contrary to facts and bad in law.
2 & 1826/Del/2022 Surat 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT (A) was not justified in upholding the assessment order by passing an ex-parte appellate order without providing adequate and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant.
2.1 That the ex-parte order passed by CIT(A) is not in accordance with the law since the CIT(A) has failed to adjudicate the appeal on merits and also failed to give specific findings on the grounds raised in appeal.
3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT (A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs.21,03,84,270/- made in the assessment order on account of cash deposited in the bank account.
3.1 That CIT (A) failed to consider that the cash deposited in the bank account was represented by cash balance as per books of accounts and that the same had emanated out of cash sales which was already reckoned as income in the P&L account of the appellant for A.Y. 2017-18.
3.2 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT (A) was not justified in confirming addition of Rs.21,03,84,270/- made in the assessment order by treating the credits in the Bank Account as unexplained credit u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act.
3.3 That the action of the CIT (A) in upholding the addition amounts to double addition as the cash deposited which is emanated out of sales was already offered as income in the P&L account of the appellant.
4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT (A) was not justified in upholding an estimated addition of Rs.31,97,29,048/- by treating 20% of the total turnover of Rs. 159,86,45,242/- as net profit of the appellant.
4.1 That the CIT (A) failed to give any independent finding with regard to the above addition and the appellate order merely upholds the addition made in the assessment order.
3 & 1826/Del/2022 Surat 4.2 That the CIT (A) failed to consider that in the absence of rejection of books of accounts by the Assessing Officer by finding specific defects in the books of accounts, no estimated net profit can be made.”
Owing to failure of the assessee on five occasions to comply with the notices issued, an ex-parte order has been passed by the ld. CIT(A) summarily dismissing the appeal of the assessee.
Before us, it was submitted that the assessee could not present before the ld. CIT(A) owing to unavoidable personal contingency and prayed that given an opportunity due compliance would be made before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. DR opposed to the plea of the assessee in principle.
We find that no prejudice would be caused to the revenue if an opportunity of being heard be given to the assessee and the order is passed on merits of the case. Hence, we remand the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue on merits. The revenue authorities would be at liberty to initiate penalty proceedings in compliance to the notices issued from time to time.
In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 23/05/2023.
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 →- Santa Singh vs. SuperintendentUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Azaad Builders vs. Assistant Commissioner SGSTUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Shadab Malik vs. State Of U.P. And 2 OthersAllahabad · 26 Oct 2026
- Ganesh Trimbak Saraf And Another vs. The State Of Maharashtra And AnotherBombay · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S. Vajram Infra Material Industries vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
