Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal challenging the order of the CIT(A) for AY 2020-21, alleging that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the AO's computation of assessed income and that an opportunity for personal hearing was not provided. The assessee was ex-parte before the CIT(A).
Held
The Tribunal held that there was a reasonable cause for the assessee's inability to represent effectively before the CIT(A) and decided to grant one more opportunity. The matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the AO's order without providing an opportunity for a personal hearing and whether the addition made was based on incriminating material.
Sections Cited
250, 132, 143(3), 69A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN
Date of Hearing 29.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement 18.12.2025 ORDER Per: SHRI. SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M.:
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dt. 12.06.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) / CIT(A) for the assessment year 2020-21. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
Ground No. 1: Computation of assessed income: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the AO of computing the assessed income at Rs. 20,38,940/- as against returned income of Rs. 8,38,941/-.
2. The Appellant prays that the action of the lower authorities be deleted.
Ground No. 2: Opportunity of personal hearing:
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) and the AO erred in passing the appellate order without giving the fair opportunity to the Appellant to put forward its case.
2. The Appellant prays it be held that the order of the lower authorities be treated as passed in violation of principles of natural justice and such an action be deleted and or the order of the lower authorities be set aside.
Ground No. 3: Addition without Incriminating material - Rs. 12.00.000/-:
Section 132 read with section 143(3) of the Act:
1. On the facts and In the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the AO of making addition in hands of the Appellant without any Incriminating material pursuant to the search.
2. The Appellant prays that the action of the lower authorities be deleted.
Without prejudice to above Ground No. 4: Unexplained cash under section 69A of the Act: Rs. 12,00,000/-:
Section 69A of the Act:
1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the AO of making addition of Rs. 12,00,000/- in the hands of the Appellant under section 69A of the Act as unexplained money on the ground that the same represents unaccounted money out of bogus sale of gold/jewellery and the Appellant failed to explain the source of money seized during the course of search and seizure.
The Appellant prays that the action of the lower authorities be deleted.
Ground No, 5: General:
Indermal Devilal Parmar, Mumbai. The Appellant craves leave to, add to, alter, amend or vary, all or any of the foregoing grounds of Appeal
2. From the records, I noticed that assessee was ex-parte before Ld. CIT(A). In this regard Ld. AR explained the circumstances before the bench that there was ‘sufficient cause’ which prevented the assessee to represent properly before Ld. CIT(A). On the other hand Ld. DR relied upon the orders passed by the revenue authorities.
3. Be that as it may, without going into the merits of the issues raised by the assessee and considering the fact that there was reasonable cause, because of which assessee could not put effective representation before Ld. CIT(A). Hence the Bench is of the view that one more opportunity be given to the assessee to represent his case before Ld. CIT(A). Therefore considering the overall circumstances of the present case, I deem it proper to restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the matter afresh by providing one more opportunity to the assessee subject to cost of Rs. 2000/- is imposed upon the assessee which shall be deposited in the Prime Minister Relief Fund and a copy of the receipt shall be placed on file before Ld. CIT(A) within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. The assessee shall not seek any adjournment on frivolous grounds and shall remain cooperative during the course of proceedings.
4. Before parting, I make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) shall in Indermal Devilal Parmar, Mumbai. no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute which shall be adjudicated by the Ld. CIT(A) independently in accordance with law.
In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.