CHANDER MOHAN SETHI,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCHES, ‘G’ NEW DELHI BEFORE MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA 6143/DEL/2025 िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2017-18) CHANDER MOHAN SETHI DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE E-18, PREET VIHAR, DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE DELHI-110092 GHAZIABAD-201001, Vs. UTTAR PRADESH अपीलाथ� Appellant ��थ� Respondent Permanent Account Number of Assessee: AASPS1246A

Shri C. S. Anand, Adv., अपीलाथ� �ारा/Appellant represented by: Ms. Veishnavi Yadav, Adv. & Ms. Aastha Sharma, Adv ��थ� �ारा/Respondent represented by: Shri Raghuveer Singh, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of conclusion of hearing: 07.07.2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of pronouncement: 17.07.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER AMITABH SHUKLA, AM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Noida, dated 06.08.2025 arising out of assessment order dated 16.10.2019 passed under section u/s143(3) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The word ‘Act’ herein this order would mean Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee moved an application under Rule-29 requesting for admission of additional evidences. It was contended that the impugned additional evidences go to the root of the matter and shall be helpful to the appellant in defending its case. As per brief factual matrix, the assessee had

ITA 6143/DEL/2025 CHANDER MOHAN SETHI

filed his Return of Income on 07.11.2017 for Rs.17,77,390/-. The ld. AO, inter alia, made addition of Rs.11 lakhs and Rs.30 lakhs u/s 68 of the Act. According to the AO, the assessee had made a deficient compliance to its notice for filing details as a result of which he proceeded to make the addition. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Ld. AO, ex-parte, as the assessee did not make any compliance to his statutory notices. 3. It is the case of the assessee that it had attempted to introduce additional evidences under Rule-46A before ld. CIT(A) through his letter dated 06.05.2024, which was not admitted and that the ld. CIT(A) proceeded to pass his ex-parte order dated 06.08.2025. The ld. Counsel accordingly requested for admission of additional evidence under Rule-29, inter alia, alluding towards satisfaction of conditions prescribed u/s 68 of the Act. 4. The ld. DR relying upon the order of lower authorities submitted that assessee is a habitual defaulter and hence doesn’t deserve any lenience. 5. We have heard both the parties in the light of material available on record. It is trite law that due opportunity of being heard is a natural right of every litigant and cannot be violated by quasi-judicial authority. It is apparent from records that the AO had made the addition for want of evidence from the assessee. As per para-4 of the appellate order, the ld. CIT(A) has also ignored the additional evidences which were purported to be introduced by the assessee. Due opportunity of being heard has therefore eluded the appellant in this case. In the interest of justice, we therefore set-aside the order of the lower authorities and

Page 2 of 3

ITA 6143/DEL/2025 CHANDER MOHAN SETHI

remit the matter back to ld. AO for re-adjudication de novo in accordance with law and by way of passing a speaking order, on the issue of addition of Rs.11 lakhs and Rs.30 lakhs made u/s 68 of the Act. We are conscious of the fact that no appellant benefits by non-prosecution of its case. The Ld. AO shall give opportunities of being heard to the assessee and it shall be bounden upon the assessee to comply with the notices issued by the Ld. AO Any non-compliance on the part of the assessee can be adversely viewed. The decision to remit it back to the Ld. AO is taken in view of the fact that an Assessing Officer is the fulcrum of assessment proceedings. He possess the first right and responsibilities to examine facts of a case before arriving at his decision qua determination of taxable income in a particular case. We have noted with respectful deference the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of TIN box 249 ITR 216 on the subject matter. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 17th July, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL] [AMITABH SHUKLA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 17.07.2026 Shekhar Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. PCIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi,

Page 3 of 3