MD ABDUL RAFIK,TEZPUR vs. DCIT/ACIT CIR-1, GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL – GUWAHATI BENCH VIRTUAL BENCH AT KOLKATA Before Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member and Shri Rakesh Mishra, Accountant Member ITA Nos. 66/GTY/2026 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Md Abdul Rafik…………..…………………………..….………...Appellant M/s Pappu Hardware, Napam Tezpur, Sonitpur, Assam, Tezpur Assam-784001 [PAN: AGUPR0228B] vs. DCIT/ACIT, Circle-1, Guwahati…………………..……...…..…..Respondent Assam-781005 Appearances by: None, appeared on behalf of the Appellant. Shri Santosh Kumar Karnani, Addl. CIT, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : April 23, 2026 Date of pronouncing the order : April 28, 2026 ORDER Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member: The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 12.02.2025 passed by the NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ‘Ld. CIT(A)] u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’) for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, assessee did not file return of income for the assessment year 2017-18. Based on the information available, the case of the assessee reopened by issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act. In response, assessee failed to file return of income, thereafter, notice u/s 142(1) was issued which also remain uncompiled with. Due to continue non-compliance, the Assessing Officer proceeded to complete the assessment ex-parte u/s 144 of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was observed that assessee had made cash deposit of Rs.1,17,21,000/- in the bank account during the

ITA No.66/GTY/2026 Md Abdul Rafik relevant period. The assessee also claimed loan of motor vehicle related transactions, amounting to Rs.34,88,000/- for which no supporting evidence were furnished. In absence of proper examination and supporting documents, the Assessing Officer believe that the cash deposit of Rs.1,17,21,000/- were treated as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act, and an amount of Rs.35,28,480/- was treated as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer assessed at total income at Rs.1,52,49,480/-. 3. Dissatisfied with the above order, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), however, there was a delay in filing the appeal which was condoned by the Ld. CIT(A). However, the Ld. CIT(A) observe that assessee has failed to properly complied with the notices and did not furnish supporting documents. Consequently, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee and upheld the assessment order. 4. Aggrieved by the above order, assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. At the time of hearing, it is brought to our notice that there was a delay of 280 days in filing the appeal. In this connection, an application for condonation of delay has been filed for condoning the same. Considering the submission, the delay is condoned and examined the issue on the merit of the case. At the time of hearing before us, none appeared on behalf of the assessee but an adjournment application was filed, however, considering the nature of the case and repeated non-compliances at the earlier stage, the adjournment request was rejected. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee heard with the assistance of the Ld. DR. The Ld. DR submitted that the assessment order was passed due to persistent non-compliance by the assessee and even before the Ld. CIT(A) no proper explanation or documentary evidence was furnished, therefore, the order of the lower authorities deserves to be upheld.

ITA No.66/GTY/2026 Md Abdul Rafik 5. We have heard the submission of the Ld. DR and perused the material available on record, from the record, we notice that the assessee failed to file the return of income for the assessment year in question and assessee did not comply with the notices issued u/s 148 and 142(1) of the Act, therefore, the assessment was completed ex-parte u/s 144 of the Act, even during the appellate proceedings, the assessee has failed to furnish any supporting evidence. Thus, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was a consequence of the assessee’s failure to comply with the statutory notices and to substantiate its claim. In these circumstances, we find that no infirmity in the order passed by the Assessing Officer as well as the Ld. CIT(A). However, in the interest of justice and fair play, we remand back the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to re-examine the issue afresh in accordance with law. The assessee is also directed to comply with the statutory notices in future and furnish necessary evidence if any, before the Ld. CIT(A) as per law. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Kolkata, the 28th April, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- [Rakesh Mishra] [Sonjoy Sarma] Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 28.04.2026. DP, PS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant - 2. Respondent - 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR), //True copy// By order Assistant Registrar, Kolkata Benches