ALI AKBAR KHAN,KOHIMA vs. ITO WARD-1 DIMAPUR, DIMAPUR

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 No.285/GTY/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ali Akbar Khan……………………………………………….………...Appellant H.No. C419, Jail Colony Kohima, Nagaland, Kohima Nagaland-797001 [PAN: COKPK7119E] vs. ITO, Ward-1, Dimapur…………………………………..……...…..…..Respondent Nagaland-797112 Appearances by: Shri C.S Anand, appeared on behalf of the Appellant. Shri Santosh Kumar Karnani, Addl. CIT, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : April 21, 2026 Date of pronouncing the order : April 22, 2026

ORDER Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member: The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 09.08.2024 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 year under consideration. It was noticed by the Assessing Officer that during the demonetisation period, assessee had deposited cash amounting to Rs.21,76,000/- in his bank account maintain with Axis Bank. Accordingly, notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued, requiring the assessee to furnish the return of income in prescribed form in accordance Rule 12 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, duly verified as

ITA No.285/GTY/2025 Ali Akbar Khan per section 140 of the Act. However, the assessee failed to comply with said notices and did not file the return of income. The Assessing Officer, therefore, completed the assessment ex-parte made an addition of Rs.1,57,73,300/- u/s 69A of the Act r.w.s 115BBE of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the above order, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). While passing the order, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that the assessee did not deposit tax required u/s 249(4)(b) of the Act. Accordingly, appeal of the assessee was dismissed in limine. 4. Still aggrieved by the above order, assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. At the time of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the matter was not properly adjudicate and the assessee could not appear due to unavoidable circumstances before the Assessing Officer. 5. On the other hand, the Ld. DR supported the order of the lower authorities and submitted that despite repeated opportunity, assessee failed to comply and did not furnish any supporting evidence. 6. We have heard the rival submission and perused the material available on record, it is an admitted fact that the assessee did not appear before the Assessing Officer and failed to file any documentary evidence. Even before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee neither complied with notices nor fulfil necessary requirement prescribed u/s 249(4)(b) of the Act. Thus, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal on account of non-fulfilment of the statutory condition. However, considering the principles of natural justice and in the interest of fairness, we are of the view that assessee should be afforded one final opportunity to present his case. At the same time, conduct of the assessee clearly reflects habitual non-compliance leading to unnecessary delay and wastage of judicial time. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. Further, we directed that the

ITA No.285/GTY/2025 Ali Akbar Khan assessee shall deposit a cost of Rs.5,000/- with the Income Tax Department and produce the receipt of the same. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Kolkata, the 22nd April, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [Rakesh Mishra] [Sonjoy Sarma] Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 22.04.2026. 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