MANDHATASINHJI MANOHARSINHJI JADEJA,MUMBAI vs. THE CIRCLE 19(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and is engaged in the business of making investments in properties and sales thereof apart from earning rental income and interest income. The assessee had filed his return of income dated 28.02.2022, declaring total income at Rs. 6,42,50,690/- which include income under the head House Property, Long Term Capital Gains, income from dairy shown under “Other sources” of Rs. 18,21,008/- and interest income. The same was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act on 08.03.2022. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny for the reason that the assessee had made huge cash deposits in his bank accounts and notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) were duly issued and served upon the assessee. The learned Assessing Officer ('ld. A.O.' for short) had passed the assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 29.12.2022, determining total income at Rs. 8,00,14,130/- after making additions of Rs. 91,13,000/- u/s 68 of the Act and Rs. 44,69,860/- by way of excess cost of improvement.

Aggrieved the assessee was in appeal before the first appellate authority, challenging the assessment order.

The ld. CIT(A) vide an ex parte order dated 08.07.2025, upheld the order of the ld. AO for the reason that inspite of several opportunities, the assessee has failed to substantiate his claim and has been non-compliant throughout the appellate proceedings.

The assessee is in appeal before us, challenging the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A). that the assessee has got a good case on the merits and prayed that the assessee may be given one more opportunity to present his case before the ld. CIT(A).

The learned Departmental Representative ('ld. DR' for short) vehemently opposed to setting aside the issue to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for the reason that the assessee was given several opportunities by the lower authorities which was not availed by the assessee. Further, the ld. DR contended that the assessee has been non-compliant constantly both before the ld. CIT(A) and prayed that the order of the lower authorities be upheld.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. It is observed that the assessee has challenged the additions made by the ld. AO before the first appellate authority but has been non-compliant throughout the appellate proceeding.

On the above facts of the case, we are of the considered view that the assessee may be given one more opportunity to present his case before the first appellate authority by adhering to the principles of natural justice. We, therefore, remand this issue back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The assessee is directed to strictly comply with the proceedings without any undue delay on his side and needless it is to say that sufficient opportunity of hearing is to be given to the assessee.