Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, KOLKATA
Date of concluding the hearing : 12.11.2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 13.11.2025 O R D E R
PER SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated 08.07.2025, arising out of the order passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) for the assessment year 2016-17.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and a Non-Resident (NRI). The case of the assessee was reopened by issuance of notice under Section 147 of the Act, pursuant to which proceedings were carried out under Section 144.In response to the statutory notice, the assessee attended through the e-Assessment /Kol/2025 Sanjay Paul Centre, Delhi and filed the required details, including a copy of the return of income and an explanation regarding expenditure claimed under different heads. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had purchased a residential property valued at ₹52,25,000/-. The assessee, however, did not furnish any documentary evidence in support of the source of investment. It was also noted that since the assessee did not file return of income for the assessment year under consideration, and that all payments to the builder were made through the NRE account. Accordingly, assessed the income of the assessee at Rs. 53,40,785/- treated the investment as unexplained and completed the assessment under Section 144 of the Act, making corresponding additions.
Aggrieved by the above assessment, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). However, the appeal was filed belatedly by 316 days. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine, declining to condone the delay, and consequently did not adjudicate the matter on merits.
It is also seen from the record that the assessee did not appear before the CIT(A) despite issue of notices on various occasions. The appeal was, therefore, decided ex parte and the order of the Assessing Officer was sustained.
Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee is a Non-Resident Indian and, due to his absence from India and lack of proper communication, he could not respond in time to the notices issued by the CIT(A). It was contended that the assessee had genuine reasons for the delay and non-appearance, and prayed that an opportunity be given to represent the case on merits before the AO.
/Kol/2025 Sanjay Paul 7. The learned DR, while supporting the orders of the authorities below, fairly submitted that if another opportunity is granted, the assessee should be directed to cooperate fully and not seek unnecessary adjournments.
We have heard both parties and perused the record. It is evident that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay of 316 days and without going into the merits of the additions made by the Assessing Officer. Considering the facts that the assessee is a non-resident individual and that there were bona fide reasons for non-appearance, we are of the view that the assessee deserves one more opportunity to present his case before the authority below.
Accordingly, in the interest of justice and fair play, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restore the matter to file of AO with a direction to adjudicate the appeal afresh, after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to extend full cooperation during the proceedings and to file all necessary documentary evidence in support of his claims.