MANOJ KUMAR PANDEY,LINGMOO vs. ITO, WARD 3(1), GANGTOK, GANGTOK

For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was not justified in passing an ex-parte order.

For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) ought to have held that the order passed by the A.O u/s 147 r.w.s 144 is bad in law and liable to be quashed.

For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal and confirming the addition of ₹3,35,16,614/- made by the Learned Assessing Officer under section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which is arbitrary, unjustified, excessive and bad in law.

For that the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the appellant was entitled to exemption under section 10(26AAA), and as such, the addition made by the A.O was not warranted.

The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing."

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had not filed the return of income for AY 2017-18. Based on the information disseminated regarding cash deposits and withdrawals, the case of the assessee was reopened and a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued by the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'AO'). Since the assessee failed to furnish the return of the income and did not respond to various statutory notices, the Ld. AO completed the assessment ex parte u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act, treating the total credit entries in the bank accounts as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and made an addition of ₹3,35,16,614/- to the income of the assessee. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who observed that the assessee did not participate in the appellate proceedings despite the issuance of multiple notices and completely failed to explain the source of the deposits, confirmed the action of the Ld. AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal.

Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted that both the assessment order as well as the appellate order were made ex parte and the assessee could not file proper reply inadvertently. Although his income is exempt under section 10(26AAA) of the Act as he is a resident of Sikkim and his main source of income is from agricultural produce, which is also exempt, but the entire deposits in the bank accounts have been added to his income. It was stated that though against the assessment order, and appeal was filed, but no compliance was made inadvertently and therefore, the addition was confirmed. The Ld. AR requested that in the interest of justice, one more opportunity may be provided to the assessee so that proper compliance could be made before the appellate authority. The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and requested that the same may be upheld.

We have considered the submissions made, gone through the facts of the case and perused the record and the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Since there was no proper compliance before both the Ld. AO as well as the Ld. CIT(A), in the interest of justice and fair play it was considered by the Bench that the request of the assessee to set aside the appellate order and restore the appeal may be allowed so that a proper opportunity of being heard may be provided.

After examining the facts of the case and the law, we deem it appropriate to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the appeal before him for disposal of the grounds of appeal taken by the assessee on merit by passing a speaking order as the merits of the case have not been discussed properly. Needless to say, the assessee shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard to make any further submission he wants to make in support of the grounds of appeal and shall not seek Manoj Kumar Pandey. unnecessary adjournments and rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962 shall also be followed and an opportunity of being heard shall also be provided to the Ld. AO, as the assessment order is also ex parte. Accordingly, the grounds taken by the assessee in the appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 2nd September, 2026. [George Mathan] [Rakesh Mishra] Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 02.09.2026 Bidhan (Sr. P.S.)