Case Law Details
Bankim Harrai Vashi Vs DCIT (ITAT Surat)
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Surat Bench, considered an appeal against an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, relating to Assessment Year 2016-17. The assessee had filed a return declaring total income of Rs.57.20 lakh and exempt income of Rs.65.88 lakh. During scrutiny assessment, the Assessing Officer found that a gift of Rs.30 lakh received from the assessee’s mother was not properly explained and added the amount as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act.
The assessee challenged the addition before the CIT(A). It was submitted that notices were requested not to be sent to the e-mail address mentioned in Form 35. However, the CIT(A) issued notices on three occasions and dismissed the appeal ex parte for non-prosecution.
Before the ITAT, the assessee filed an application under Rule 29 seeking admission of additional evidence, including SBI bank statements and Central Bank of India passbook entries of the assessee’s mother, to establish the source of the gift. The assessee requested another opportunity to present the evidence before the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO). The Revenue also agreed that the matter could be remanded for verification of the additional evidence.
The Tribunal, considering the rival submissions and principles of natural justice, set aside the orders of the lower authorities and directed the JAO to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to explain the additional evidence and produce all relevant documents. The appeal was treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT SURAT
This appeal is filed by the assessee as against the appellate order dated 15.09.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (in short referred to as “CIT(A)”), arising out of the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2016-17.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is individual, filed its return of income for the AY 2016-17, declaring total income of Rs.57,20,540/- and exempt income of Rs.65,88,435/-. The return was taken for scrutiny assessment and found that the gift received from the mother was not explained properly. Therefore, the Assessing Officer (in short, the ‘AO’) added cash credit of Rs.30,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act.
3. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, in appeal Form 35, the assessee requested notices were not send to e-mail address, however, the Ld. CIT(A) issued three notices on 24.01.2021, 15.05.2025 and 04.07.2025 and thereby dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution.
4. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in further appeal before us, raising following grounds of appeal:
“1. The Ld. Addl/JCIT(A)-2/Chennai CIT(A), NFAC has erred and was not just and proper on the facts of the case and in law in confirming the addition of Rs.30,00,000/- u/s 68 Income-tax Act as Cash Credit being Gift received from his mother.
2. The Ld. Addl/JCIT(A)-2/Chennai CIT(A), NFAC has erred and was not just and proper on the facts of the case and in law in dismissing the Appeal ex-parte.
3. PRAYER:
3.1 The addition made by Ld Assessing Officer and confirmed by the Ld Addl/JCIT(A)-Chennai may be kindly deleted/restored back to CIT(A)-NFAC-Chennai for hearing.
3.2 Personal hearing may be granted.
3.3 Any other relief that your hours may deem fit may be granted.
4. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or delate any or all of the above grounds of appeals.”
5. At the outset of hearing, the assessee also filed application under Rule 29for admitting additional evidence, i.e., SBI bank statement of Shantaben Harrai Vasi for the ended on 01.05.2015 to 30.11.2015 and Central Bank of India bank passbook of Shantaben Harrai Vashi for the ended on 02.04.2015 to 15.10.2015. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee further placed on bank account of assessee’s mother with SBI and Central Bank of India to prove the source of gift of the assessee. Thus, Ld. Counsel pleaded that the assessee may be given opportunity of hearing before the JAO with all additional evidence and also to prove the source of gift given by assessee’s mother.
6. On the other hand, Ld. Sr. DR for the revenue submitted that the matter may be set aside to the JAO to verify the additional evidence.
7. We have heard and perused the materials available on record. Referring to the above statement of rival submission of parties and in the principle of natural justice, we deem it fit to set aside the order passed by the lower authorities with a direction to the JAO to grant one more opportunity of hearing to explain the additional evidence filed by the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee should make use of this final opportunity of hearing and produced all relevant evidences before the JAO to pass order on merits of the case.
8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
Order is pronounced under provision of Rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 on 06-05-2026
Author Bio
