What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) had dismissed the appeal without examining the merits and that the assessee was unable to furnish some evidence. Therefore, to ensure natural justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh examination of the documents.

The assessee purchased a property and the Assessing Officer treated a portion of the investment as unexplained. The CIT(Appeals) confirmed the addition without delving into the merits of the case. The assessee appealed to the ITAT, arguing the CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal ex-parte.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without considering the merits of the case, and whether the assessee should be granted an opportunity to present evidence.

Huzaifa Motiwala vs ITO | ITAT Kolkata 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Vice-(KZ)

ITA No. 297/KOL/2026 (A.Y. 2016-2017) Huzaifa Motiwala IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Vice-President (KZ)

I.T.A. No. 297/KOL/2026 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Huzaifa Motiwala,…………..………….……….…Appellant P-103, Princep Street, Kolkata-700072, W.B. [PAN:AEUPM0585Q] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………..…..Respondent Ward-40(1), Kolkata, 3, Government Place, Kolkata-700001 Appearances by: Shri Manish Tiwari, A.R., appeared on behalf of the assessee Ms. Sima Das Biswas, Sr. D.R., appeared on behalf of the Revenue Date of concluding the hearing: June 09, 2026 Date of pronouncing the order: June 22, 2026 O R D E R

The present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against the order of Id. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 06.01.2026 passed for Assessment Year 2016-2017.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income on 11.05.2023 in ITR 3 declaring total income at

ITA No. 297/KOL/2026 (A.Y. 2016-2017) Huzaifa Motiwala Rs.2,15,200/-, in which income from profits and gains from business or profession has been shown at Rs.90,000/-, from income from other sources of Rs.1,25,200/-. From the purchase deed, it is seen that the assessee purchased the property at a consideration of Rs.66,78,500/- and stamp duty and registration fee paid by the assessee was at Rs.5,77,448/-. Accordingly total purchase consideration came at Rs.72,55,948/-. There were four purchasers of the said property and share of each purchaser as per deed is 25%. Accordingly, purchase consideration for the share of assessee in the property stands at Rs.18,13,987/-. The assessee was required to prove the sources of investment in the property to this extent only. From the Bank account statement of assessee, it is seen that the assessment paid Rs.6,91,686/- to the seller and builder Ideal Real Est4ates on 16.10.2012 through cheque. The assessee was required to furnish/upload and substantiate the sources of investment to the extent of Rs.11,22,301/- (Rs.18,13,987/- less Rs.6,91,686/-. As the assessee did not furnish any reply/details and any such documents, the ld. Assessing Officer treated the amount of Rs.11,22,301/- as unexplained investment of assessee. Moreover, as the assessee failed to furnish the required clarification/explanation/details regarding the difference in market value and registered value of share of property of the assessee amounting to Rs.1,12,500/-, the ld. Assessing Officer treated the difference amount of Rs.1,12,500/- in respect of addition under the head “income from other sources” as unexplained and added to the total income of the assessee. Finally, ld. Assessing Officer determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.14,50,001/- (income as per ITR

ITA No. 297/KOL/2026 (A.Y. 2016-2017) Huzaifa Motiwala Rs.2,15,200/- plus Rs.11,22,301/- in respect of unexplained investment plus Rs.1,12,500/- in respect of variation under the head ‘income from other sources’). Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals).

The ld. CIT(Appeals) in his appellate order confirmed the addition made by the ld. Assessing Officer by simply upholding his order and without going into merit of the case. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal.

At the time of hearing, it was the submission of the ld. Counsel for the assessee that ld. CIT(Appeals) just simply upholding the order of ld. Assessing Officer dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte without going into merit of the case. He prayed before the Bench to set aside the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals).

On the other hand, it was the submission of the ld. Departmental Representative that the assessee failed to offer any explanation/supporting documents in respect of the grounds of appeal raised by him before the ld. Assessing Officer as well as ld. CIT(Appeals). The ld. D.R. pleaded that inspite of sufficient opportunities provided to substantiate his case, the assessee did not produce any supporting documents in support of his claim. Therefore, he pleaded to uphold the orders passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals).

ITA No. 297/KOL/2026 (A.Y. 2016-2017) Huzaifa Motiwala 6. I have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record. The assessee did not furnish any documentary evidence in support of his claim before the ld. Assessing Officer. The ld. CIT(Appeals) just simply upholding the order of ld. Assessing Officer dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte without going into merit of the case. The ld. CIT(Appeals) was of the opinion that as the assessee failed to avail the opportunities offered on various occasions from time to time, it is understood that assessee is not keen to pursue the appeal as per law and accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee is liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution by the assessee. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the assessee was not in a position to file some of the evidences before the ld. CIT(Appeals). Therefore, in order to ensure the principle of natural justice, I am of the view that it is a fit case to provide one more opportunity to the assessee and remit the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(Appeals) to decide the issue afresh and to examine these documents. Therefore, I remit the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(Appeals) with a direction to dispose of the appeal without any inference on the observations of earlier order passed by him. At the same breath, I also hereby caution the assessee to promptly co-operate with the proceedings before the Ld. CIT(Appeals) failing which the Ld. CIT(Appeals) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law and merits of the case, based on the materials available on the record. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee in the appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes.

ITA No. 297/KOL/2026 (A.Y. 2016-2017) Huzaifa Motiwala 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 22/06/2026.

Sd/- (Duvvuru RL Reddy) Vice-President (KZ) Kolkata, the 22nd day of June, 2026 Copies to :(1) Huzaifa Motiwala, P-103, Princep Street, Kolkata-700072, W.B. (2) Income Tax Officer, Ward-40(1), Kolkata, 3, Government Place, Kolkata-700001 (3) CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi; (4) CIT - , Kolkata; (5) The Departmental Representative; (6) Guard File TRUE COPY By order

Assistant Registrar, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata Laha

HUZAIFA MOTIWALA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 40(1),, KOLKATA

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments