MUKUL DIXIT,VPO JIWANA GULIYAN TESHIL BARAUT vs. ADDL/JCIT (A) RANCHI, ADDL/JCIT (A) RANCHI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.7330/Del/2025 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Mukul Dixit, Income Tax Officer VPO Jiwana Guliyan, Ward 1(5), Tehsil Baraut, v. Baraut, U.P. Baghpat-250345, U.P. [PAN: BCNPD1305D] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by CA Sh. Kumar Gandhrav Jain Department by Sh.Raghubir Singh, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing 22.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement 22.07.2026 ORDER PER RAMIT KOCHAR, AM:

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order passed by the learned Addl./Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal Addl/JCIT(A), Ranchi[‘Addl/JCIT(A)’ in short] dated 20.02.2025 u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961(DIN & Order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1073534773(1)), which in turn has arisen from the assessment order dated 07.12.2019 passed by the AO u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act (DIN No. 20121105221). 2. At the outset, it is observed that this appeal is filed by the assessee belatedly by 138 days beyond the time stipulated u/s 253(3) of the Act. It is observed that the assessee has filed a medical certificate issued by Dr. Manchvir Singh(MBBS –Reg No. 20446) , dated 01.12.2025, Janta Clinic of Binoli Road, , Baraut, Baghpat, U.P. , wherein it has been certified by the said Doctor that the assessee was under-going treatment with the

2 ITA No. 7330/Del/2025 Mukul Dixit said Doctor for the period 01.06.2025 for ailment hepatitis infection and other diseases, and the assessee was advised complete bed rest. Thus the assessee has claimed due to his illness of hepatitis infection and other diseases, he could not file the appeal in time.The ld. Sr. DR objected to said adjournment. After considering the entire materials on record and hearing the arguments. , we condone the aforesaid delay , and proceed to adjudicate this appeal on merits. When substantial justice is pitted against technicalities, the courts will lean towards advance of substantial justice, unless malice is at writ large or there is gross negligence. We do not see any malice on the part of the assessee or gross negligence on the part of the assessee in filing this appeal belatedly beyond the time prescribed u/s 253(3) of the 1961 Act, as the assessee is not likely to gain anything by filing this appeal belatedly beyond the time prescribed u/s 253(3) of the 1961 Act. Reliance is placed on judgment and order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji & Ors. 1987 (2) SCC 107. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the Revenue was in possession of AIR , wherein it was reported that the assessee had deposited an amount of Rs. 15,71,000/- in his Savings Bank account maintained with Punjab National Bank, during the year under consideration. Verification letter dated 19.02.2019 was issued by the AO to the assessee u/s 133(6) of the 1961 Act. There was no compliance by the assessee. Thereafter notice u/s 148 dated 27.03.2019 was issued by the AO to the assessee , but there was no compliance made by the assesse and no return of income was filed by the assessee in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act. During the course of proceedings conducted by the AO u/s 147/148 of the 1961 Act, statutory notices u/s 142(1) and SCN were issued by the AO to the assessee, but there was no compliance on the part of the assessee ,which led AO to pass an assessment order u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the 1961 Act , wherein the total cash deposit to the tune of Rs. 15,71,700/- made by the assessee in his saving bank account maintained with PNB was added to the assessee’s income on account of unexplained cash deposits in his saving bank account.

3 ITA No. 7330/Del/2025 Mukul Dixit 4. Aggrieved, the assessee filed first appeal with ld. CIT(A) . Despite four notices issued by the ld. CIT(A) during the course of appellate proceedings, the assessee only responded to one notice wherein it reiterated grounds of appeal and statement of facts but no evidence was filed by the assesse to substantiate its stand . It was submitted by the assessee in the statement of facts that the assessee is engaged in the business of retail trade, has duly filed return of income under the presumptive scheme of taxation u/s 44AD of the 1961 Act. The assessee stated that cash deposited in his SB a/c with PNB, were on the account of sale proceeds of cloth. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee and assessment order passed by ld. AO was confirmed.

4 ITA No. 7330/Del/2025 Mukul Dixit Section 250(6) of the 1961 Act (Now Section 359(4) of the Income-tax Act, 2025), wherein ld. Addl./JCIT(A) has to state point for determination, his decision and reasons thereof. The ld. Addl./JCIT(A) even did not made any enquiry, and not even assessment records were called for by ld. Addl/JCIT(A). The assessee has claimed in its statement of fact that the receipts are from retail trading , and the assessee has availed presumptive scheme of regime of taxation u/s 44AD. Before us, the assesse is now contending that the receipts are from manufacturing of Bricks. The ld. CIT(A) did not made any enquiry to unravel the truth as to the facts enumerated in statement of facts. The appellate order passed by ld. Addl/JCIT(A) is subject to further appeal with ITAT u/s 253 of the 1961 Act (Now Section 362 of the 2025 Act). The appellate order passed by ITAT is subject to further appeal before Hon’ble High Court u/s 260A(Now Section 365 of the 2025 Act). The judgment and order passed by Hon’ble High Court is also subject to challenge before Hon’ble Supreme Court. Thus, the appellate order passed by ld. CIT(A) is not a final order, as it is subject to challenge before higher appellate authority. Thus, Reasons which weighed in the minds of the adjudicating authority while adjudicating appeal on merits of the issues are cardinal as the higher appellate authority can then adjudicate appeal on the issues arising in appeal before them, based on decision and reasoning of ld. CIT(A) in deciding the issues. If the ld. CIT(A) simply dismiss the appeal merely because the assessee did not comply with the notices issued by ld. CIT(A) in limine without adjudicating issues arising in the appeal on merits , such order is not sustainable in the eyes of law keeping in view provisions of Section 250(6) (Now Section 359(4) of the 2025 Act) , and also higher appellate authorities will be deprived to see what weighed in the mind of the ld. CIT(A) while adjudicating appeal as it will be an order passed without reasoning on the issues on merits . The appellate order of the Addl/JCIT(A) is clearly in violation of section 250(6) of the 1961 Act(Now Section 359(4) of the 1961 Act), and liable to be set aside. Merely stating the reassessment order passed by AO is upheld, and that the assessee has not submitted details/documents/evidences before ld. Addl/JCIT(A)

5 ITA No. 7330/Del/2025 Mukul Dixit is not sufficient. The ld. CIT(A) is not toothless as his powers are co-terminus with the powers of the AO, which even includes power of enhancement. It is equally true that the assessee also did not complied with the three notices issued by ld. Addl/JCIT(A) out of as many as four notices issued during appellate proceedings, and did not file the requisite details/documents to support his contentions. Thus, the assessee is equally responsible for its woes as the assessee did not comply with the notices issued by the AO as well ld. Addl/JCIT(A). Keeping in view the entire factual matrix as culled out above in the preceding para’s of this order, it will be fair to both the parties as well in the interest of justice, that the appellate order of ld. CIT(Appeals) be set aside and the matter be remanded back to the file of ld. CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication after giving proper opportunity of being heard to both the parties w.r.t. the issues arising in the appeal. The assessee is directed to comply with the notice issued by ld. CIT(Appeals) during the appellate proceedings in set aside remand proceedings, otherwise ld. CIT(A) shall be free to decide the appeal ex-parte on merits in accordance with law, after complying with provisions of Section 250(6) of the 1961 Act (Now Section 359(4) of the 2025 Act). We clarify that we have not commented on merits of the issues. Thus, the appellate order passed by ld. Addl/JCIT(A) is set aside and matter is restored back to the file of ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. We order accordingly.

6 ITA No. 7330/Del/2025 Mukul Dixit 2. Respondent 3. CIT(E) 4. CIT 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI