DHARMENDER KUMAR,DELHI vs. ITO WARD- 59(6), DELHI, DELHI

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण
िदʟी पीठ “एस एम सी”, िदʟी
ŵी िवकास अव̾थी, Ɋाियक सद˟

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH “SMC”, DELHI
BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER
आअसं.2943/िदʟी/2025 (िन.व. 2017-18)
Dharmender Kumar,
R-44H, Block-R, Dilshad Garden,
Delhi 110095

...... अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant
PAN: ADUPK-0100-A बनाम Vs.

Income Tax Officer, Ward-59(6),
Delhi 110002

..... ᮧितवादी/Respondent

अपीलाथŎ Ȫारा/Appellant by : None

ŮितवादीȪारा/Respondent by : Ms. Sudha Gupta, Sr. DR

सुनवाई कᳱ ितिथ/ Date of hearing

:
31/07/2025

घोषणा कᳱ ितिथ/ Date of pronouncement :
:
31/07/2025

आदेश/ORDER

PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM:

This appeal by the assessee is directed against an ex-parte order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income
Tax (Appeals)-2, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the CIT(A)') dated
07.03.2025, for Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. A perusal of assessment order shows that addition of Rs.9,17,630/- was made in the hands of the assessee u/s. 69C of the Income Tax
Act,1961(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) on account of unexplained expenditure. The assessee has claimed expenditure in respect of payments made through credit card. The Assessing Officer (AO) has disallowed the aforesaid claim

2
of the assessee rejecting the explanation furnished by the assessee. The assessee carried the issue in appeal before the CIT(A). A perusal of impugned order reveals that the CIT(A) had issued four notices to the assessee i.e. on 03.03.2021,
12.09.2022, 29.01.2025 & 03.03.2025. There was no response from the assessee’s side to the notices issued by the CIT(A). However, it is not emanating from the impugned order as to on which address notices were issued to the assessee and whether the notices were ever served on the assessee or not. Considering entire facts, I deem it appropriate to restore this appeal back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after affording reasonable opportunity of making submissions to the assessee, in accordance with law.
3. A perusal of Form No. 35 reveals that although, the assessee had mentioned email address but in the very next column of Form No. 35 the assessee has opted that the communication/notices be not sent on email. Therefore, in accordance with the option exercised by the assessee/appellant in Form No. 35, the CIT(A) shall issue physical notice to the assessee on the address mentioned in Form No. 35. 4. The assessee shall respond to the notice(s) served by the CIT(A), without fail.
5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on Thur ay the 31st day of July, 2025. (VIKAS AWASTHY)

᭠याियक सद᭭य/JUDICIAL MEMBER
िदʟी/Delhi, ᳰदनांक/Dated 05/08/2025

3
NV/-
ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषतCopy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथᱮ/The Appellant ,
2. ᮧितवादी/ The Respondent.
3. The PCIT/CIT(A)
4. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आय.अपी.अिध., िदʟी /DR, ITAT, िदʟी
5. गाडᭅ फाइल/Guard file.

BY ORDER,
////

(Asstt.