MUKESH,JHAJJAR vs. ITO WARD 3, ROHTAK
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Finding that the NFAC had decided the issue ex parte without independent findings, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the NFAC for de novo adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal arose from an order confirming an addition of ₹47,80,000/- made on account of cash deposits. The assessee had not responded to notices issued by the NFAC as they were sent via email, leading to an ex-parte decision.
What were the issues?
Whether the NFAC was justified in confirming the addition of cash deposits without providing an independent finding on merits, and whether the ex-parte decision was proper.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “SMC”: NEW DELHI
O R D E R
The appeal in for AY 2012-13 arises out of the order of the ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT(A)’, in short] in Appeal No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1067737639(1) dated 19.08.2024 against the order of assessment passed u/s u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 dated 10.11.2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by ITO, Ward-3, Rohtak (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’).
At the outset, I find that there is delay in filing of appeal before me by 240 days. Considering the reasons adduced in the condonation petition, I am inclined to condone the delay and admit the appeal of the assessee for adjudication.
The only effective issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld NFAC was justified in confirming the addition of ₹47,80,000/- made on account of cash deposits in the State Bank of Patiala by the assessee in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. Page | 1
I have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. I find on perusal of the order of ld CIT(A) that assessee has been seeking adjournment for one reason or other and the same was granted. Finally, when the notices were issued in the month of June and July 2024, the assessee had not responded to the same as the said notice was sent only in email. The assessee came to know only when penalty notice was issued to him when he had actually verified the portal. It is a fact that the ld NFAC had decided the issue ex parte without giving its independent finding on merits. Hence, in the interest of substantial justice and fair play, I deem it fit and appropriate to restore this appeal to the file of ld NFAC for de novo adjudication in accordance with law. Assessee is at liberty to furnish fresh evidences, if any, in support of his contention. Needless to mention that the assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee is directed to cooperate with the ld NFAC for expeditious disposal of the appeal by not taking unwarranted adjournments except due to bona fide or exceptional circumstances. With these observations, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes by restoring to the file of ld NFAC.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 27/08/2025.
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 →- M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Mahaveer Ispat Traders vs. Principal Commissioner Dgst Delhi Department Of Trade And Taxes Gnctd & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Modern Engineers And Contractors vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- K Madhusudan Reddy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Sandeep Ranjan Rout vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026