Non-Service of Appeal Order of CIT(A): ITAT Restores Unexplained Money Matter for fresh adjudication [Read Order]
The tribunal observed that the CIT(A) did not serve the appeal order to the assessee and directed the matter to be reconsidered afresh by the Assessing Officer
![Non-Service of Appeal Order of CIT(A): ITAT Restores Unexplained Money Matter for fresh adjudication [Read Order]](https://www.taxscan.in/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Unexplained-Money-Case-ITAT-Appeal-CITA-Order-taxscan.jpg "Non-Service of Appeal Order of CIT(A): ITAT Restores Unexplained Money Matter for fresh adjudication [Read Order]")
The Surat Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) restored the matter back to the Assessing Officer (AO) in a case involving unexplained money under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, citing non-service of the appeal order. Pareshbhai Khodabhai Godhani (assessee), the appeal before the Tribunal arose from an ex-parte order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)...
The Surat Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) restored the matter back to the Assessing Officer (AO) in a case involving unexplained money under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, citing non-service of the appeal order.
Pareshbhai Khodabhai Godhani (assessee), the appeal before the Tribunal arose from an ex-parte order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], for the Assessment Year 2017-18.
The CIT(A) had upheld an addition of Rs. 15,05,680 made by the AO on account of alleged unexplained cash deposits during the demonetisation period, taxing it under Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Tax Authorities Are Watching! Avoid clubbing mistakes: Click Here
The assessee filed the appeal before the Tribunal with a delay of 17 days. The counsel for the assessee submitted that the impugned order was never served on the assessee via the email ID provided in Form-35. The assessee only became aware of the dismissal on 05/02/2024 when his consultant accessed the ITBA portal.
Therefore, the appeal was filed thereafter, and an application for condonation of delay was also submitted. The Tribunal accepted the explanation, noting that the delay was neither intentional nor inordinate, and condoned it.
Affective Ways Of Tax Planning for HUF, Partnership Firm and Will - Click here
The counsel argued that he had furnished necessary explanations and submissions, including details of withdrawals and opening cash in hand amounting to Rs. 15,13,990, which matched the cash deposit.
The counsel for the assessee submitted that the CIT(A) neither considered these details nor admitted the additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The counsel further stated that the AO and CIT(A) both passed orders without granting proper opportunity of hearing.
The counsel for the Revenue supported the orders of lower authorities and sought to dismiss the appeal of the assessee.
Tax Authorities Are Watching! Avoid clubbing mistakes: Click Here
The two-member bench comprising Pawan Singh (Judicial Member) and Bijayananda Pruseth (Accountant Member) observed that both the AO and CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders.
The tribunal observed that the CIT(A) did not serve the appeal order to the assessee and directed the matter to be reconsidered afresh by the Assessing Officer.
The tribunal observed that it was fit to restore the issue back to the AO for fresh adjudication in accordance with law, with a direction to grant reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The tribunal directed the assessee to be vigilant and ensure proper compliance going forward. Thereby, the appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes
To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
