RAVISAMVEL,DINDIGUL vs. ITO, WARD-1 , DINDIGUL

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, engaged in the business of sale of vegetable and fruits and had not filed his return of income for A.Y.2020-21. As per the information available with the department, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has made cash deposits to the tune of Rs.26,85,393/- and Rs.20,56,400/- into his bank accounts maintained with ICICI Bank and SBI respectively during the A.Y.2020-21. The case was re-opened u/s.147 of the Act, a notice u/s.148 of the Act dated 18.03.2024 issued to the assessee. In response, the assessee filed his return of income on 06.06.2024 for the A.Y.2020-21, by declaring the total income of Rs.4,55,200/-. Further, the AO issued statutory notices to the assessee and called for

Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi on 15.02.2025.

At the outset, we observed that ld.CIT(A) has provided four opportunities for the assessee to appear for hearings as detailed in paragraph 5 of the ld.CIT(A) order to support the appeal of the assessee. However, the assessee chose to be silent and did not respond to any of the notices and hence, the ld. CIT(A) passed an order dated 06.10.2025 by confirming the order of the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved by the impugned orders of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us.

The ld.AR submitted that the assessee was stationed far away from the major cities and not aware of the hearing notices issued by the ld.CIT(A) and hence he could not submit the written submission and valid evidence before the ld.CIT(A). In view of the above, the ld.AR prayed to set aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) and remit the issues to the file of Assessing Officer by providing one more opportunity to the assessee. Further, ld.AR assured the bench that the ld.AR will represent on behalf of the assessee before the Assessing Officer to complete the assessment proceedings effectively.

Per contra, the ld.DR submitted that both the Assessing Officer and the ld.CIT(A) provided sufficient opportunity to appear before them. However, the assessee has been negligent in responding to the statutory notices and hence, prayed for confirming the order of the ld.CIT(A).

We have heard the rival parties and perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the lower authorities. We note that the AO has passed order by considering the information available with the department and on appeal the same has been confirmed by the ld.CIT(A), NFAC due to non-participation of the assessee. Since the assessee has failed to participate both before the Assessing Officer as well as the ld.CIT(A), we levy cost of Rs.10,000/- to be paid to State Legal Aid Authority, Hon’ble High Court of

In view of the above and to meet the ends of justice we set aside the order of ld.CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of AO and direct the AO to denovo frame the assessment order in accordance with law, after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee to be diligent and file written submissions and relevant documents if advised so.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.