ABDUL HAMEED,DELHI vs. ITO, DELHI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A”, DELHI

BEFORE SH. SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No.1665/DEL/2026 Assessment Year: 2012-13 ITA No. 1666/Del/2026 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Abdul Hameed Vs. ITO Ward48(1) New Delhi 1600, Gali Andheri Phari Bhojla Chiti Qabar Jama Masjid Delhi PAN No. AABPH8800Q (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)

Appellant by Shri Nafees Bukhari, Adv Mr. Sarim, Advocate Respondent by Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora. Sr. DR

Date of hearing: 14/05/2026 Date of Pronouncement: 05/06/2026 ORDER PER SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER: These appeals by the assessee are directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “Ld. NFAC)”] vide order dated 04.08.2025 for the Assessment Years 2012-13, and 2013-14 arising out from the assessment orders dated 27-12-2019

under section 144 of the Income-Tax Act 1961, (herein referred “the Act”). 2. Since the issue are common and the appeals are connected hence the same are heard together and being disposed of by the common order. 3. The assessee has raised the various grounds in appeal but the ground no.1 stated as under: 1. The learned commissioner of Income -tax (Appeals) has erred in passing the order u/s 250 of the IT Act dated 04-08-2025(hereinafter referred as “impugned order” by which the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the appellant (herein referred as “first appeal”) on non- prosecution and non-appearance of appellant during the hearing, without properly appreciating the facts and submissions filed by the Appellant. The Ld. CIT(A) has completely ignored the case law laid down in the matter of “Vijay Krishan Bhandari Bilaspur vs. Income Tax Officer” decided Hon’ble Income Tax Tribunal Raipur Bench on 08-01-2025. Thus the Ld. CIT(A) has ignored the principal of natural justice that the appeal should be decided on merit. 3.The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income for a gross total income of Rs. 2,27,540/-. for A.Y.2012-13 and Rs. 2,14,580/- for A.Y. 2013-14. Information received from ITO(I&CI) -06 Delhi that Mr. Malik Mohd, Tanveer, Sh. Hamid and Mohd. Rafiq jointly sold immovable property no. 216-219 Main Bazar Subzi Mandi Delhi-110007 for a consideration of Rs.4,85,00,000/- on 16-05-2012. Further,

the Stamp Duty of Rs.29,10,000/- was paid on Rs. 4,85,00,000/- but the total sale consideration was Rs.26,00,000/-. A notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 30- 03-2019. Subsequently the Assessing Officer issued notices u/s 142(1) of the Act to the original assessee. Adul Hameed had already been died on 22-12-2018 and the legal heir of Abdul Hameed brought this fact to AO on 13-11-2019, thereafter the AO issued an order u/s 159 of the Act on 03-12-2019 in the name of the legal heir of the assessee. The assessing Officer completed the assessment orders dated 27-12-2019 after making the additions for the both assessment years. 4. Aggrieved the order of the Assessing Officer the assessee filed the appeal before the Ld. NFAC who vide his orders dated 04- 08-2025 dismissed these appeals. Being aggrieved the orders of the Ld. NFAC the assessee filed these appeals. 4. The Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the opportunity of being heard was not provided by the lower authorities. The Learned authorized representative for Department of Revenue submitted that departmental authorities have passed reasoned orders. He also submitted that the assessee has not taken part in the proceedings before the Ld. NFAC. The appeal was rightly rejected by the Ld. NFAC. 5. We have heard the parties and perused the material available on record. It is an admitted fact that despite opportunities

granted by Ld. NFAC, the assessee did not file his submissions, for which the appeal was dismissed for non- prosecution by the Ld. NFAC. 6. Since in these appeals, the assessee has failed to file his

submission after availing the various opportunity. The assessee

did not file his submissions after seeking the various

adjournments before appellate authority and the Ld. NFAC

dismissed the appeals for non-prosecution. The appeals should

have been decided on merit as per the provision of the section

250 of the Act. The appeals were decided ex-parte without

giving the opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

Therefore, considering the totality of the facts and

circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, we

deem it proper to restore the issue to the files of the Ld. NFAC

with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to

substantiate its claim and decide the issue as per fact and law.

The assessee is also directed to appear before the Ld. Assessing

officer and co-operate in the proceedings. The grounds raised by

the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.

SD/- SD/- (MANISH AGARWAL) (SUDHIR KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (JUDICIAL MEMBER) SR BHATNAGGAR Date: 05.06.2026 Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) ` 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT DELHI