ANUMOD SHARMA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-16, NEW DELHI

This appeal by the assessee is directed against an ex-parte order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-28, Delhi [in short ‘the CIT(A)] dated 22.12.2022, for the Assessment Year 2016-17.

The appeal is time barred by 250 days. The assessee has filed an application supported by an affidavit citing reasons causing delay in filing of appeal. After perusal of the same, we are satisfied that delay in filing of appeal is not intentional, the delay has been caused for the reasons stated in petition which appears to be bonafide. Thus, (A.Y. 2016-17) delay of 250 days in filing of appeal is condoned and appeal is admitted for decision on merits.

Shri Paritosh Jain, appearing on behalf of the assessee submits that the assessee is a senior citizen and his suffering from various age-related ailments. The assessee had filed its return of income for AY 2016-17 on 15.02.2018 declaring income of Rs.1,29,77,380/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS. Notices were issued by the Assessing Officer (AO) but the same were not received by the assessee. Hence, there were no compliance of the notices by the assessee. The Assessing Officer after invoking provisions of section 144 of the Income Tax Act,1961(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) made disallowance of Rs.94,07,766/- u/s. 57 of the Act as the assessee failed to furnish proof of deduction. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 23.12.2018, the assesee filed appeal before the CIT(A). However, no submissions were furnished on behalf of the assessee before the CIT(A) as the assessee was not properly represented by the Authorized Representative before First Appellate Authority. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that an opportunity may be granted to the assessee to make submissions before the AO. The ld. Counsel undertakes that the assessee shall definitely respond to the notices issued by AO/CIT(A), henceforth.

Shri Ashish Tripathi, representing the department submitted that the assessee is recalcitrant and has scanty respect for the notices issued by the AO and the CIT(A). He pointed that the assessee even did not respond to the penalty notices issued by AO u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act.

Both sides heard, orders of the authorities below examined. This appeal by the assessee is against ex-parte order passed by First Appellate Authority. A perusal of (A.Y. 2016-17) appeal file shows that multiple notices were issued by the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings, however, the assessee failed to furnish reply to any of the notices. The AO was constrained to complete assessment invoking the provisions of section 144 of the Act, similar was the situation before the CIT(A). Considering entire facts of the case, without commenting on merits we deem it appropriate to restore this appeal back to the AO for denovo assessment, after affording reasonable opportunity of making submissions to the assessee, in accordance with law.

The assessee shall respond to the notice(s) served on him by the AO, without fail.

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on Wednesday the 16th day of April, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (S RIFAUR RAHMAN) (VIKAS AWASTHY) लेखाकार सद�य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER �याियक सद�य/JUDICIAL MEMBER िद�ी/Delhi, �दनांक/Dated 27/06/2025 NV/- �ितिलिप अ�ेिषतCopy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ�/The Appellant , 1. �ितवादी/ The Respondent. 2. 3. The PCIT/CIT(A) 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आय.अपी.अिध., िद�ी /DR, ITAT, िद�ी गाड� फाइल/Guard file. 5.