MOHD RAFI,DODA, JAMMU AND KASHMIR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, UDHAMPUR

ITA 561/ASR/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Mohd. Rafi against the order of the ld. CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi, which was passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, stemming from an earlier order by the AO, Udhampur under section 144 of the Act. The primary contention in the appeal was the failure of the CIT(A) to consider the assessee's request for adjournment and the erroneous treatment of Rs. 1,827,500 as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. The assessee had deposited cash in various bank accounts during the demonetization period, amounting to Rs. 18.27 lacs, and no return was filed. The assessment was completed ex-parte, leading to the current appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 714330 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 144; 142(1)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR (HYBRID COURT) BEFORE SH. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 561/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mohd. Rafi, Doda, Jammu & Kashmir 182203 [PAN: CBYPR 6303N] (Appellant) Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward, Udhampur (Respondent) Appellant by Respondent by : : Sh. P. N. Arora, Adv. Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. D. R. Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement : : 16.07.2025 07.08.2025 ORDER Per Udayan Dasgupta, J.M.: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi dated 12.08.2024 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which has emanated from the order of the AO, Udhampur passed u/s 144 of the Act, dated 16.12.2019. Printed from counselvise.com 2 I.T.A. No. 561/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 2. Grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in Form No. 36 are as follows: “1. The Ld. CIT (A) failed to consider the request for adjournment raised by assessee on 14-07-2024 and passed the order without giving any final opportunity of being heard. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in treating Rs. 1827500/- as unexplained money u/s 69A as the said amount was received by the assessee on account of debtor recovery and sales in the normal course of business.” 3. Brief facts emerging from record are that the assessee has deposited cash in various bank accounts during the demonetization period amounting to Rs.18.27 lacs maintained with J & K Bank and no return has been filed. In absence of any return on record and in absence of any compliance to notice issued u/s 142(1) of the Act the assessment was completed ex-parte on a total income of Rs.24.82 lacs (which includes an amount of Rs.18.27 lacs as SBN deposits and amount of Rs.6.48 lacs as profits from business at percentage of the balance deposits). 4. In course of appellate proceedings, the appeal has been dismissed by the ld. first appellate authority without any adjudication on the grounds contained in the memorandum of appeal on merits. It is seen from the appellate order that the notices of hearing issued to the appellant on four separate dates and it is also seen that the appellant has furnished documents along with the written submissions on 09.06.2024 and 14.07.2024 (para 1.3 of the appellate order). Subsequently, it is also noted by us Printed from counselvise.com 3 I.T.A. No. 561/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 that the appeal has been dismissed in limine without any adjudication on the submissions made by the assessee by observing that the appellant did not respond both observations being contradictory. 5. As such, we remand the matter back to the files of the ld. CIT(A) for adjudicating on the grounds of appeal contained in Form No. 35 on merits after allowing a proper and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to file all documentary evidences and submissions to satisfactorily explain the source of cash deposits in bank including the deposits during demonetization period and to fully cooperate in appellate proceedings. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in accordance with Rule 34(4) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 as on 07.08.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (Manoj Kumar Aggarwal) (Udayan Dasgupta) Accountant Member Judicial Member *GP/Sr.PS* Copy of the order forwarded to: (1)The Appellant: (2) The Respondent: (3) The CIT concerned (4) The Sr. DR, I.T.A.T True Copy By Order Printed from counselvise.com "