NEERAJ KUMAR JHA,MAHARASHTRA vs. ADDL/JCIT(A)-12 DELHI, DELHI

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee did not file the return of income for the impugned assessment year. Based on information received, the Ld. AO observed that the assessee had made a time deposit of Rs.2,00,000/- and had earned interest income of Rs. 21,374/- during the relevant assessment year. Accordingly, the Ld. AO reopened the assessment under section 147 of the Act after recording reasons to believe that income amounting to Rs.2,21,374/- had escaped assessment, and consequently issued a notice under section 148 of the Act. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the Ld. AO, on examination of the assessee's bank statement obtained by issuing a notice under section 133(6) of the Act, observed that total credits amounting to Rs.15,28,531/- had been received in the bank account. Out of the said credits, an amount of Rs.2,21,374/- represented the assessee's salary income. After excluding the salary income from the total bank credits, the Ld. AO treated the balance amount of Rs.13,07,157/- as unexplained and added the same to the total income of the assessee. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) granted the assessee four opportunities of hearing; however, the assessee failed to appear or comply with any of the notices. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution. Being further aggrieved, the assessee has preferred the present appeal before us. 3. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee was not conversant with the online appellate proceedings and, therefore, could not comply with the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. AR further placed on record an undertaking on behalf of the assessee assuring that, if another opportunity is granted, the assessee shall duly comply with all notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) and effectively prosecute the appeal. 4. The Ld. DR supported the orders of the lower authorities and relied upon the findings recorded therein.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is an undisputed fact that the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal for non-prosecution without adjudicating the issues raised on merits. The assessee has explained that, being unfamiliar with the online appellate procedure, he could not effectively comply with the notices issued during the appellate proceedings. Before us, the Ld. AR has also filed an undertaking assuring that the assessee shall duly cooperate with the proceedings and comply with all future notices issued by the appellate authority. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and in the interest of substantial justice, we are of the considered view that the assessee deserves one final opportunity to present his case before the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we set aside the impugned appellate order and restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law after providing the assessee with a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard. The assessee is also directed to extend full cooperation and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments during the appellate proceedings. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the additions made by the Ld. AO, and all the issues are left open to be decided independently by the Ld. CIT(A) in accordance with law. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.3071/Mum/2026 is allowed for statistical purposes.