GEYOOR ALI KHAN,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, GHAZIABAD

Ground Order of CITA Bad in Law ExParte Dismissal: That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals is 1 bad in law and liable to be set aside as the appeal has been dismissed exparte without adjudicating the issues on merits, in violation of the mandatory provisions of section 2506 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Ground Violation of Principles of Natural Justice: That the Ld. CITA has erred in passing the impugned order without providing a reasonable and effective opportunity of being heard to the appellant. It is respectfully submitted that the appeal before the Ld. CITA was filed through a tax consultant, and the email ID sameer1987,201 Srediffmail.com and mobile number 8882520834 mentioned in Form No. 35 belonged to the said consultant and not to the appellant. All notices were issued on such email ID and mobile number, and the consultant failed to inform the appellant about the same. As a result, the appellant remained completely unaware of the appellate proceedings and could not make any compliance. The exparte order passed under such circumstances is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and deserves to be set aside.

Ground Dismissal for Non Prosecution Invalid: That the Ld. CITA has erred in dismissing the appeal for non prosecution 3 without passing a speaking order and without adjudicating the issues on merits, which action is arbitrary, unjustified and contrary to settled law. 4. Ground Invalid Reopening u/s 147: That on the facts and in law, the reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 are bad 4 in law as the reasons recorded for reopening were not supplied to the appellant, thereby depriving the appellant of his legal right to file objections and violating the principles of natural justice.

Ground Addition u/s 69 Unjustified: That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in 5 making an addition of 4853970 under section 69 of

Ground Addition Based on Incomplete and Incorrect Facts Additional Ground: That the addition under section 69 has been made on an incomplete and incorrect factual premise by treating the source of investment as cash gifts. The appellant subinits that the actual source of investment was his share in sale proceeds arising from development of ancestral property under a Joint Development Arrangement. However, such correct factual position was never brought on record before the Ld. Assessing Officer OR the Ld. CITA due to lack of proper representation and understanding

Ground Correct Source Not Earlier Explained Additional Ground: That the appellant submits that the investment in immovable properties was in fact soureed from genuine and identifiable transactions arising out of development of ancestral property, and the funds were received through family managed arrangements, including routing through family members. However, such explanation could not be furnished before the lower authorities and is being placed before this Honble Tribunal for the first time in the interest of substantial justice.

Ground NonConsideration of Relevant and Material Facts Additional Ground: That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the addition has been sustained without consideration of the complete and correct facts relating to the source of investment, as the relevant evidences establishing such source could not be placed before the lower authorities due to lack of proper representation and bona fide reasons. The appellant, therefore, prays that the said facts and evidences, which go to the root of the matter, may kindly be admitted and considered in the interest of justice.

Ground Without Prejudice: That without prejudice to the above 9 grounds, the addition made is arbitrary, excessive and not sustainable on the facts and circumstanees of the case.

Ground Liberty to Amend: That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend OR withdraw any ground of appeal at OR before the time of hearing.

The registry has pointed out a delay of 133 days in filing of the appeal for which an application for condonation alongwith affidavit has been filed by the assessee which is reproduced as under :-

After going through the facts mentioned in the affidavit we are inclined to condone the delay. The Ld. DR submitted that the issue of condonation of delay may be decided on merit.

At the outset the Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted before the Bench that the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non prosecution as assessee could not comply with the notice issued by him.

Per contra the ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below.

We have considered the findings given by the Ld. CIT(A) in the appellate order and we have head the arguments of both the parties during proceedings before us. We are of this considered view that keeping in view the element of natural justice the assessee should be given one more opportunity to bring all the facts / details before the ld. CIT(A) for passing a speaking order. Accordingly, this case is remanded back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after giving adequate opportunity to the assessee as required under law. The matter is remanded back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the Court on 02.09.2026.