ANIL MADAN,CONNAUGHT PLACE vs. ACIT/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -17, JHANDEWALAN EXTENSION

By this common order, we propose to decide the ITA Nos. 4895 & 4896/Del/2025 as the parties are same and factual matrix is also same and in order to avoid the multiplicity of decision, the same are being disposed off accordingly. ITA No.

Facts in brief are that the assessee is an individual filed return of income on 29.10.2022 declaring total income of Rs.48,24,630/-. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.3,13,000/- regarding cash deposits by the assessee. Further addition of Rs.63,36,357/- was made on account of failure to explain the nature and source of credits in the bank account of the assessee. The third addition of Rs.50,000/- was made as assessee has not furnished any proof of deduction u/s 80D of the Act.

Aggrieved by the said addition in assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who has dismissed the same ex-parte on the ground that the assessee has failed to file any response despite various notices issued.

Aggrieved by the impugned order, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

We have heard the ld. AR and the ld. DR. The ld. AR at the very outset submitted that the impugned order has resulted into miscarriage of justice because the ld. CIT(A) has decided the appeal without giving effective opportunity of hearing. It is further submitted that the notices allegedly issued were never

We have considered the rival submissions and examined the record. In order to appreciate the arguments of the ld. AR, the para 4, 4.1 and 4.2 of the impugned order are relevant and extracted below as under: “4. In consequence to the appeal filed, appellant was given various opportunities to the present the case before CIT(A)-27 Delhi vide various notices dated 03.03.2025, 19.03.2025 and 16.04.2025 for hearing dates scheduled on 17.03.2025, 03.04.2025 and 23.04.2025 respectively to serve the principle of natural justice. But no response received from the assessee. 4.1 Despite several opportunities provided to the appellant, the Appellant/ AR neither appeared for the hearing nor filed any written submission. From the above details regarding opportunities provided it apparent that appellant has been given more than fair opportunities to present its' case. 4.2 The aforesaid circumstances show that the appellant is not interested in pursuing its appeal. In the absence of any reply from the appellant, the matter is being decided ex-parte based on material on record. Keeping in view the aforesaid factual position, the appeal filed by the appellant is therefore decided on merits.” 8. Section 250(2)(a) lays down as under: “250(2) The following shall have the right to be heard at the hearing of the appeal- (a) the appellant, either in person or by an authorized representative;”

Thus, the hearing mandated by Section 250(2)(a) of the Act is not a mere formality but a mandatory statutory requirement for following the principle of natural justice by the quasi-judicial authority.

In view of the above facts and circumstances, it is evident that the impugned order has been passed without effective hearing and principle of natural justice has not been followed For these reasons, the impugned order is not maintainable and accordingly set aside. The end of justice shall be met in case the matter is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the issue afresh by affording an effective opportunity of hearing and considering the submissions to be made by the appellant/assessee. The assessee/appellant is also directed to make the necessary submissions/ detailed material before the Ld. CIT(A) within the period of 60 days of this order.

Since, the factual matrix and the decision of the ld. CIT(A) is identical and similar in this appeal vis-à-vis ITA No. 4895/Del/2025, hence, the findings of the Tribunal in ITA No. 4895/Del/2025 shall apply mutatis mutandis in ITA No.4896/Del/2025 for A.Y. 2023-24 also.