ZAHEER SALIMUDDIN ,BULANDSHAHR vs. ITO WARD 1(4), , ALIGHARH

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA (DB) BENCH, AGRA BEFORE: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 333/Agr/2026 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Zaheer Salimuddin, Vs. ITO Ward 1(4), Marris Road, H.No. 102, Azad Road, Chattari, Aligarh-202002 Bulandshahr-202397 PAN : AALPZ7409F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Department by Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 23.06.2026 Date of pronouncement 23.06.2026 ORDER

PER: SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated 10.12.2025 passed in appeal No NFAC/2015-16/10164788 by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax/ NFAC(Delhi) (hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A) u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for the A.Y. 2016-17, wherein ld CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s first appeal ex-parte. 2. The brief facts under appeal state that the assessee deposited Rs. 1,94,37,23,673/- in his bank account for A.Y. 2016-17, declaring total commission income of Rs. 48,32,362/-. The case was reopened by

ITA No.333/Agr/2026

issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 30.03.2021 and statutory notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served upon the assessee. Assessee did not respond thereof, ld A.O. completed the best judgement assessment on 29.03.2022 by estimating assessee’s income at Rs. 1,62,10,214/- after making an addition of Rs. 1,46,04,874/- u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act. 3. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before learned CIT(A), who dismissed assessee’s first appeal in default of assessee. 4. Assessee has filed this second appeal on the ground that learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the said additions of Rs. 1,46,04,874 by applying NP rate of 1% on the total commission earned by assessee. 5. We have perused the records. None responded for the appellant assessee. Heard ld Sr DR for the respondent revenue. 6. Learned DR has submitted that assessee was provided sufficient opportunity of hearing by learned CIT(A) but for no avail. Learned DR has supported the ex-parte impugned order. 7. We notice that the assessee did not respond to the various notices issued by the first appellate authority on different occasions. However, it is further noticed that learned CIT(A) passed ex-parte impugned order without any substantial discussion on the merits of the case, whereas learned CIT(A) was expected to state the points for determination, decision thereon 2 | P a g e

ITA No.333/Agr/2026

and the reasons for the decision as provided u/s. 250(6) of the Act. In the circumstances and in the interest of justice and fair play, we deem it just and appropriate to afford last opportunity to the assessee and remit the matter back to the file of learned assessing officer for adjudication on merits afresh in accordance with law. We further direct the assessee to be diligent and cooperative in attending the hearings and making submissions. Assessee should refrain from seeking any adjournment but for compelling and unavoidable circumstances. Needless to say that learned assessing officer shall ensure the observance of the principles of natural justice. It is made clear that we have not made any observation in respect of the merits of the case. The appeal is liable to be allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose. The impugned order dated 10.12.2025 is set aside.

Order pronounced on - 23.06.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH) (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dated:24.06.2026

3 | P a g e

ITA No.333/Agr/2026

*Aamir, PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Agra

4 | P a g e