SALIMAHMED UMARGANIBHAI VAHORA,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(3)(1), VADODARA

O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:-

Delay Condoned This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the appellate order dated 27.05.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, relating to the Assessment Year 2017-18.

2.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of ₹25,00,000/- on account of income declared under the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016 thereby confirming the entire disclosed income of ₹25,00,000/- as income under section 69A rws 115BBE of the IT Act for the year under consideration, without adjudicating the appeal on merits. 3.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in law and on facts in confirming the additions made by the Assessing Officer ex-parte in violation of the mandate under section 250(6) of the Act, which requires the Commissioner (Appeals) to dispose of the appeal through a reasoned order on each ground of appeal, irrespective of the appellant's absence or non-compliance. 4.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC failed to appreciate that non-appearance of the appellant does not empower the Commissioner (Appeals) to dismiss or decide appeal on merits without real hearing. 5.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in law and on facts in confirming the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271AAC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the alleged under reporting and/or mis-reporting of income. 6.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC erred in law and on facts has confirmed the charging interest under section 234A, 2348 and 234F of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 7.0 The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, delete or modify any of the above grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

3. On perusal of the records, it is observed that the assessee was afforded three opportunities of hearing to furnish details, clarifications, and explanations to substantiate the source of cash deposits. However, despite being granted multiple opportunities, the assessee remained non-compliant and failed to furnish the requisite details or explanations before the Ld. CIT(A). Consequently, the Ld. CIT(A), based on the material available on record, upheld the action of the Assessing Asst. Year : 2017-18 - 3– Officer and dismissed the appeal ex parte. We also find that assessee even failed to submit substantial documents before the Assessing Officer. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed that, given an opportunity, all necessary details, clarifications, and explanations would be furnished to the Revenue authorities. Hence, in the interest of justice, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment. The assessee shall submit all the relevant bank statement/submission/document before the Assessing Officer and comply with the notices issued by the revenue authorities without seeking any unnecessary adjournments.

The order is pronounced in the open Court on 07.11.2025.

S /- Sd/- Sd/- (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT (True C (True Copy) py) Ahmedabad; Dated 07.11.2025 MV Asst. Year : 2017-18 - 4– आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��थ� / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, True Copy