MAZHER ALI KHAN,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

(िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year:2021-22) Shri Mazher Ali Khan, Dy. CIT, Circle 6(1) Hyderabad. Vs. Hyderabad PAN: AEZPK4724N (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा��रती �ारा/Assessee by: Shri P. Vinod, Advocate राज� व �ारा/Revenue by: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 06/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 06/10/2025 आदेश/ORDER PER MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, A.M. :

This appeal is filed by Shri Mazher Ali Khan (“the assessee”) feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”) dated 28/07/2025 for the A.Y 2021-22. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual who had filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against the assessment order of Learned Assessing Officer passed under section 143(3) read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) dated 20.12.2022. During the appellate proceedings, the assessee sought adjournments for various notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A). However, the Ld. CIT(A), after observing that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal, dismissed the same for non-prosecution.

4. Aggrieved with the orders of the Ld. CIT (A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. The Learned Authorised Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that the assessee had sought adjournment for four weeks vide submission dated 15.07.2025 in response to the notice dated 08.07.2025 issued by the Ld. CIT(A). However, without considering the request for adjournment, the Ld. CIT(A) issued a final notice on 18.07.2025 and dismissed the appeal by order dated 28.07.2025. It was contended that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) suffers from violation of the principles of natural justice, as adequate opportunity was not granted to the assessee to present his case. The Ld. AR prayed that one more opportunity may kindly be given to the assessee by remitting the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

5. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) opposed the plea for remand and submitted that the assessee had repeatedly sought adjournments without any sufficient or reasonable cause. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in dismissing the appeal for non- prosecution.

6. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is evident that the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee merely on the ground that the assessee had repeatedly sought adjournments. The assessee has explained that a request for adjournment was made on 15.07.2025, but the same was not considered by the Ld. CIT(A). In our considered view, dismissal of an appeal for non-prosecution without adjudicating the issues on merits amounts to denial of natural justice. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to his file with a direction to afford adequate opportunity to the assessee and decide the appeal afresh on merits, in accordance with law. The assessee is also directed to extend full cooperation and not to seek unnecessary adjournments.