MOHAMMAD SAHADAT ALI,FATEHPUR vs. AO (NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE), DELHI

O R D E R PER NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, A.M.: These four appeals have been filed by the assessee against the orders of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y. 2013-14 and 2014-15 vide separate orders dated 8.07.2024. The grounds of appeal

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) (NFAC) erred in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant on the grounds of non-submission of documents by the appellant without considering the submitted document and the facts of the case. The appellant, therefore, prays that the impugned order be set aside.

,139,147&148/Alld/2024 A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Mohammad Sahadat Ali

5. That the Ld. CIT (A) NFAC has erred in law and on the facts of the case in invoking section 69 r.w. section 115BBE of the Act, whereas the appellant in his appeal had duly disclosed the source of his bank transactions being his income from job outside India. 6. That the order passed by the Ld. NFAC is arbitrary and suffers from harshness in imposing such a high-income tax on the bank transactions not taxable in India. The impugned order is devoid of the merits and is therefore liable to be quashed. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT (A) NFAC erred in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant without deciding the appeal on the merits as laid down in Dinesh Kumar Chimanbhai Nandani Versus Income Tax Officer and ITO, New Delhi v. M/s. M.M. Chhabra & Sons (HUF), New Delhi. 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the Ld. CIT (A) (NFAC), Delhi u/s 250 of the Act, on 08.07.2024 is bad in the eye of law as the same is issued after the time limitation period allowed by the section 250 of the Act. 9. That the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT (A) (NFAC), is on assumptive grounds and is beyond the financial capacity of the assessee to pay.” 10. That the assessee craves leave to amend, alter or add to the grounds of appeal before or during the hearing of the matter.”

,139,147&148/Alld/2024 A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Mohammad Sahadat Ali

3. The facts of the case in the remaining two appeals are similar. The Department received information that the assessee had constructed a market in the name of Apna Bazar in Takiya Fakeer Mohalla and made unexplained investment of Rs.12,11,300/- in the same in the A.Y. 2013-14 and unexplained investment of Rs.2,34,620/- in the A.Y. 2014-15. Furthermore, in the assessment year 2014-15, the assessee was found to have unexplained credits of Rs.14,88,315/- in his bank account. Since the search of the Departmental data base did not reveal that the assessee had filed any return prior to the investments, the ld. AO had reason to believe that there was income escaping assessment to the extent of investments made by the assessee. Accordingly, in both assessment years, the ld. AO issued notices under section 148. There was no compliance to the notices under section 148. Therefore, the ld. AO issued notices under section 142(1) on three occasions. Upon the failure to receive any compliance, a show cause notice under section 144 was issued to the assessee and upon failure to receive compliance to the same, orders were passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 and section 144B of the Income 3 ,139,147&148/Alld/2024 A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Mohammad Sahadat Ali Tax Act on 20.03.2022 in the A.Y. 2013-14 and 21.03.2022 in the A.Y. 2014-15. The investments made by the assessee in the construction of the house property and the credits in his bank accounts were brought to tax in his hands in the said assessment orders. Aggrieved with the said assessment, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A), NFAC, observed that the appeals were delayed but he condoned the delay after considering the submissions of the assessee that the email ID registered on the Income Tax Portal, did not belong to him and he came to know about the assessment orders only when he received a hard copy by the post. The ld. CIT(A) considered these submissions of the assessee that in the A.Ys.2013-14 and 2014-15, that the assessee was an NRI and his total income in India did not exceed the maximum limit which were not chargeable to tax. However, he observed that the assessee had not submitted any documentary evidence such as passport/Visa in support of his claim of being NRI in the relevant year, therefore he refused to accept the contention of the appellant. He further observed that the assessee had filed an affidavit to the extent that the owner of immovable property was one Liyaqat Ali, but the ld. CIT(A) observed, that he had not submitted any copy of registered deed/Parcha/Khatiyan etc., in support of his claim and hence the contention of the assessee could not be accepted. He further observed from the bank statement of the assessee, that he had deposited cash in his bank accounts on various dates during the year and from the same he concluded that the assessee was continuously residing in India during the year. In view of the above, he rejected all the grounds of appeal

taken by the appellant and the additions made by the ld. AO were upheld.

4. The assessee is aggrieved at this dismissal of his appeal by the ld. CIT(A), NFAC and has accordingly come before us. Shri. Adiya Chhajed, Advocate (hereinafter referred to as the ’ld. AR’) appeared on behalf of the assessee and argued the case. It was submitted that the assessee was working in Saudi Arabia from 1997 till 2018. During the years under consideration, the assessee did not 4 ,139,147&148/Alld/2024 A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Mohammad Sahadat Ali come to India, however since the family of the assessee reside in India, he used to remit a portion of his income back to India for utilization of the same by his parents. Since, the assessee was an NRI, until his permanent return to India in 2014, he was obligated to comply with the provisions of the Income Tax Act, only for limited purposes. It was submitted that the proceedings under section 148 that were initiated against the assessee could not be attended due to the fact of the assessee’s absence from India and accordingly, an ex parte order was passed against the assessee. Subsequently, an appeal was filed against the said order. It was submitted that the notice of hearing that was issued on 7.06.2024, was replied to by the assessee on 15.06.2024 but the ld. CIT(A), NFAC had passed the impugned orders dated 8.07.2024, without considering the reply filed by the assessee and holding that the assessee had not produced the documents to support his arguments. It was submitted, that in fact the assessee had filed a detailed reply to the notices issued by the ld. CIT(A), and in proof of the same, our attention was invited to page 20 of the paper book for the A.Y. 2013-14 which contained Acknowledgment Bearing No.440321291150624 filed for the A.Y. 2013-14 and page no. 5 of the paper book filed for the A.Y. 2014-15 which contained Acknowledgement Bearing No. 440416351150624. Inviting our attention to the acknowledgments, the ld. AR submitted that it would be seen that not only had he filed affidavit, title deed, copy of passport and bank statement, but he had also filed a written submission with regard to the notices issued. However, the ld. CIT(A), NFAC had not bothered to go through the documents that had been uploaded along with the replies and had simply stated that evidences had not been filed by the assessee. It was submitted that since the order had been passed without taking material evidences available on record, the impugned orders were in violation of the principles of natural justice and therefore, void. In support of this argument, our attention was invited to the following decisions:-

,139,147&148/Alld/2024 A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Mohammad Sahadat Ali i. ACIT vs. Balmiki Prasad Singh, 2018 (9) TMI 1936 – SC. ii. Nabco Products Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India & Others Writ Tax No.997 of 2022 (Allahabad) dated 3.08.2022. iii. Emco Cables (India) Private Limited vs. Union of India & Others, W.T.(C) 1622/2024 and C.M. Appl. 6702/2024 dated 27.02.2024 (Delhi). Accordingly, it was prayed that since the assessee was not heard on merits, it was a sufficient ground for quashing the orders passed by the ld. CIT(A), NFAC. It was, therefore, prayed that the impugned orders dated 8.07.2024 for the A.Ys. 2013- 14 and 2014-15, may kindly be set aside and directions be issued to provide the assessee with a fresh opportunity to present the complete facts at hand and thereafter for the lower authorities to adjudicate the matter, based on the facts available on record. In response, Shri. A.K. Singh, ld. Sr. DR submitted that while he had no objection to the matter being remanded back to the ld. CIT(A) for consideration of the evidence furnished by the assessee, in view of the failure of the assessee to comply during assessment proceedings, the Tribunal may issue instructions to the assessee to make due compliance before the ld. CIT(A) so that ld. CIT(A) may have the benefit of his assistance during the appeal proceedings.