SURENDER KUMAR,ALWAR V. ITO, WARD-1(1), ALWAR

ITA 787/JPR/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Surender Kumar, the appellant, who contested the addition of Rs. 7,96,000 to his income, attributed to unexplained cash deposits in his bank account during the financial year 2010-11. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) initially made this addition, which was upheld by the CIT(A). The appellant's primary contention was the lack of service of notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, which was dismissed by the CIT(A) as the appellant did not raise this issue at the time of filing his return. The tribunal, however, decided to remand the case for a fresh decision, emphasizing the need for a fair hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 793579 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 19-05-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GAUTAM SINGH CHOUDHARY
• Section: 148; 144; 142(1)

Judgement Text

"vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC-Bench” JAIPUR Jh xxu xks;y] ys[kk lnL; ,oa Jh ujsUnz dqekj] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRIGAGAN GOYAL, AM& SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihyla-@ITA No. 787/JPR/2025 fu/kZkj.k o\"kZ@AssessmentYear : 2011-12 Surender Kumar 54-55 Road No. 25B, Harchandpur, Bhiwadi Tizara, Bhiwadi. cuke Vs. The ITO, Ward-1(1), Alwar. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkjla-@PAN/GIR No. AWGPK6577N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : None jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl.CIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing :24/09/2025 mn?kks\"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 26/09/2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER: NARINDER KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER . Present appeal has been filed by the assessee, feeling dissatisfied with the order dated 21.03.2025, passed by Learned CIT(A), whereby the appeal filed by the assessee challenging assessment order dated 17.12.2018, has been dismissed, and the assessment order has been upheld, as regards the only addition of Rs. 7,96,000/- made due to Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 787/JPR/2025 Surender Kumar, Bhiwadi unexplained cash deposits in his bank account with HDFC Bank during the period from 25.08.2010 to 31.03.2011. 2. It may be mentioned here that none has appeared on behalf of the appellant. Even on the previous date i.e. on 25.08.2025 none appeared on behalf of the appellant, and the appeal was adjourned for today. 3. In the given situation, we have heard only Ld. DR for the department. Ld. DR for the department has submitted that the impugned order, passed by Learned CIT(A) is a reasoned order whereby addition due to unexplained cash deposits of Rs. 7,96,000/-, has been upheld, for the reasons recorded therein, and as such the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 4. As is available from the impugned order, Learned CIT(A) issued notices to the appellant u/s 250 of the Act, but, the appellant failed to respond thereto. Consequently, Learned CIT(A) proceeded to dispose of the appeal ex-parte. 5. As is available from the assessment order, case of the assessee was re-opened by way of notice issued on 28.03.2018. It was followed by Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 787/JPR/2025 Surender Kumar, Bhiwadi notices u/s 142(1) of the Act issued on 18.07.2018 and 0908.2018. Since the assessee did not respond to the said notices, notice u/s 144 of the Act accompanied by notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued on 22.11.2018. It was thereupon that the assessee filed return of income on 04.12.2018, declaring total income of Rs. 1,56,680/-. 6. Before Learned CIT(A), the assessee raised a ground that no notice u/s 148 of the Act was served upon him, and as such, reopening of the proceeding was bad in law. 7. While dealing with this ground of appeal, Learned CIT(A) rightly observed that when the assessee submitted return of income on 04.12.2018, he did not raise any such objection regarding service of notice u/s 148 of the Act. From the assessment order, it does not transpire that the assessee had raised any such ground that he was never served with any notice u/s 148 of the Act. Therefore, we are of the considered view that Learned CIT(A) was justified in rejecting said ground of appeal. Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No. 787/JPR/2025 Surender Kumar, Bhiwadi 8. As regards the addition of Rs. 7,96,000/-, Learned CIT(A) relied on the findings recorded by the Assessing Officer and upheld the assessment order, while observing that the assessee had not supported his grounds of appeal by any documentary evidence, details or any other particulars. No doubt, appellant was required to furnish all the relevant documents to explain the cash deposits, but, the fact remains that no documentary evidence was produced by him in the appellate proceedings. 9. However, taking into consideration the claim put forth by the assessee before the Assessing Officer to explain cash deposits during the period from 2.05.2010 to 31.03.2011, and non participation of the appellant in the appellate proceedings, despite issuance of notices by registered email ID, we deem it a fit case to remand the matter to Learned CIT(A) for decision afresh. Result 10. As a result, in view of the above discussion, this appeal is disposed of, for statistical purposes and the matter is remitted to Learned CIT(A) for decision of the appeal afresh, after providing another opportunity to the assessment-appellant of being heard. Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No. 787/JPR/2025 Surender Kumar, Bhiwadi 11. However due to non participation of the assessee in the appellate proceedings, the assessee-appellant is burdened with costs of Rs. 2000/-. The appellant to deposit the said amount of costs in “Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund” and produce the receipt before Learned CIT(A) before commencement of the proceedings on remand. File be consigned to the record room after the needful is done by the office. Order pronounced in the open court on 26/09/2025. Sd/- Sd/- ¼xxu xks;y½ ¼ujsUnz dqekj½ (GAGAN GOYAL) (NARINDER KUMAR) ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 26/09/2025 *Santosh vkns'k dh izfrfyfivxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- Surender Kumar , Bhiwandi 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ITO, Ward-1(1), Alwar. 3. vk;djvk;qDr@ Theld CIT 4. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;djvihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur 5. xkMZQkbZy@ Guard File ITA No. 787/JPR/2025) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@Asstt. Registrar Printed from counselvise.com "