RINKLE VORA,AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(2)(1), AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT

ITA 649/AHD/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Rinkle Vora, the appellant, who appealed against the order of the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2 Delhi, which confirmed an addition of Rs. 5,00,000 to the appellant's income as unexplained cash deposits under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer had initially made this addition during the scrutiny assessment, citing unexplained cash deposits in the appellant's bank account. The appellant contended that due to illness, he was unable to provide necessary documents during the assessment. The CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal without discussing the merits or addressing the specific grounds raised by the appellant. The Tribunal found the dismissal by CIT(Appeals) to be cryptic and lacking in procedural fairness, leading to the decision to set aside the CIT(Appeals)'s order and remand the case for a thorough re-examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 777364 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 28-03-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 144; 271(1)(c); 68

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH Before: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Member And Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar, Accountant Member Rinkle Vora C-601, Swaminarayan Avenue, Nr. Bhatha, Sarkhej Road, Vasna, Ahmedabad-380007 Gujarat PAN:BBHPP9402Q (Appellant) Vs The ITO, Ward-5(2)(1), Ahmedabad (Respondent) Assessee Represented: Shri Vidhi V. Pandya, C.A. Revenue Represented: Shri Arvind Kumbhare, Sr.D.R. Date of hearing : 25-09-2025 Date of pronouncement : 29-09-2025 आदेश/ORDER PER : SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This appeal is filed by the Assessee as against the appellate order dated 05.12.2023 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2 Delhi arising out of the assessment order passed under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The assessee has raised the following Grounds of Appeal: ITA No: 649/Ahd/2025 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A No. 649/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No Rinkle Vora vs. ITO 2 1. Addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- u/s 68 on account of unexplained money and cash deposits. On facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) by confirming the order passed by the Ld. AO has grossly erred in making addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the income of the appellant on account of unexplained money and cash deposits. 2. Initiating penalty proceeding u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act. On facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has grossly grossly erred in Initiating the proceedings for levy of penalty u/s.. 271(1) (c) of the Act when no such penalty is leviable. The proceedings initiated by the Ld. AO should be dropped as it is wrongly initiated. 3. Initiating penalty proceeding u/s 271F of the Act. On facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has grossly erred in initiating the proceedings for levy of penalty u/s. 271F of the Act when no such penalty is leviable. The proceedings initiated by the Ld. AO should be dropped as it is wrongly initiated. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee’s return of income was taken up for scrutiny assessment and during the course of proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed cash deposits in the bank account of the assessee which, according to him, were not properly explained. Since no satisfactory clarification or evidence was furnished by the assessee during assessment, the Assessing Officer treated the sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- as unexplained cash deposit and made an addition under section 68 of the Income- tax Act, 1961. The assessee contended that he was ill during the relevant period and therefore unable to collect and furnish the details of bank transactions before the Assessing Officer. Despite this, the Assessing Officer proceeded to complete the assessment and added the sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the total income. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings separately under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for alleged concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Thus, the assessment was completed by making the addition of Rs. Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A No. 649/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No Rinkle Vora vs. ITO 3 5,00,000/- as unexplained cash deposits and by initiating penalty proceedings under the above provision. 4. In appeal, CIT(Appeals) dismissed the assessee of the assessee with the following observations: “3. The appellant was given many hearing notices 19.12.2019. 25.01.2021, 15.11.2023 and 24.11.2023 but no reply was filed by the appellant against any of the above notices. Further, it is noted that despite giving various opportunities to represent the case over the years the appellant has chosen not to submit any documents. It is apparent that appellant has not shown any interest in pursuing the appeal. Therefore, considering the facts of the case, the appeal is hereby dismissed for statistical purposes.” 5. The assessee is in appeal before us against the order passed by CIT(Appeals) dismissing the appeal of the assessee. Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that that CIT(Appeals) has passed a very cryptic order, in which neither any opportunity of hearing was provided to the assessee and neither was the case of the assessee was discussed on merits. The assessee had raised several grounds of appeal, but while dismissing the appeal of the assessee, none of the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee were discussed. 6. In response, Ld. DR placed reliance on the observations made by CIT(Appeals) in the appellate order. Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A No. 649/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No Rinkle Vora vs. ITO 4 7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. On going through the appellate order, it is seen that the ld. CIT(Appeals) has passed a very cryptic order without adverting to the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee and without discussing the case on merits. It is further noticed that the first date of hearing fixed on 25.01.2021 was during the Covid pandemic period when normal functioning was seriously affected, while the subsequent dates of hearing, namely 15.11.2023 and 24.11.2023, were fixed at very short intervals without affording any effective opportunity to the assessee to represent his case. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the assessee has not been granted a fair and reasonable opportunity of being heard before the ld. CIT(Appeals). Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we set aside the impugned order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) and restore the matter to his file for de-novo adjudication. The ld. CIT(Appeals) shall consider the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, examine the issues on merits, and decide the same in accordance with law after affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 8. Thus, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes Order pronounced in the open court on 29 -09-2025 Sd/- Sd/- (MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR) (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad : Dated 29/09/2025 आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A No. 649/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No Rinkle Vora vs. ITO 5 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. Guard file. By order/आदेश से, उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, अहमदाबाद Printed from counselvise.com "