Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee-appellant challenged an order passed by the Learned CIT(A) which dismissed their appeal due to non-compliance and delay in filing. The original assessment was made on the ground that the assessee failed to substantiate the source of investment for immovable property.
Held
The Tribunal held that the impugned order of CIT(A) did not mention whether any deficiency notices were issued to provide an opportunity to the appellant to rectify the deficiencies. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for providing an opportunity to the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal without providing an opportunity to the assessee to rectify deficiencies and condone the delay.
Sections Cited
250, 147, 148, 142(1), 69, 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR
Before: SHRIGAGAN GOYAL, AM& SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM
fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@AssessmentYear : 2017-18 Juzar Mohammed Husain Bankodawala cuke Circle (Intl Tax) Vs. Jaipur. Najampura Sagwara, Dungarpur, Jaipur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkjla-@PAN/GIR No.:ASOPB3950C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assesseeby :None jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing :17/07/2025 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 21/07/2025 vkns'k@ORDER Per: NARINDER KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER .
Appellant-assessee has challenged order dated 03.03.2025, passed by Learned CIT(A), Delhi-42, u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). None has appeared on behalf of the appellant. Even on the previous date, there was non appearance on behalf of the appellant, and the appeal was adjourned in view of request received from Ld. AR for the assessee.
Juzar Mohammed Husain Bankodawala, Jaipur In the given situation, Ld. DR for the department has advanced arguments. Learned DR has submitted that the appellant remained non-compliant even before Learned CIT(A), despite sufficient opportunity, and that there were deficiencies in the appeal, which the appellant did not remove, and furthermore, the appellant did not move any application seeking condonation of delay of about 5 months in filing of the appeal before Learned CIT(A), and as such, CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant.
Vide impugned order, Learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee due to non compliance by the appellant in the appeal proceedings, and also on account of delay in filing of the appeal.
As a result of dismissal of the appeal, order dated 26.03.2022, passed by DCIT, National Faceless Assessment -Central- u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act has been upheld.
Vide assessment order dated 28.03.2022, relating to the assessment year 2017-18, the Assessing Officer made an addition u/s 69 of the Act of the value of Rs. 44,58,209/- and accordingly, the Assessing Officer computed total income of the assessee at Rs. 45,87,450/-.
Juzar Mohammed Husain Bankodawala, Jaipur 5. Said assessment came to be made on the ground that the assessee had failed to substantiate source of investment of Rs. 44,58,209/-, the sale consideration said to have been paid by him, on purchase of certain immovable property.
It may be mentioned here that the assessment proceedings were commenced, when the Assessing Officer had reasons to believe that income for the said assessment year had escaped assessment. That is how, the case was reopened u/s 147 of the Act, and notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee.
As is available from para 3 of the assessment order, the assessee filed his ITR, in response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act on 14.04.2021, but same was not verified in the e-filing portal.
Four notices u/s 142(1) of the Act were issued by the Assessing Officer to the assessee on 11.11.2021, 17.12.2021, 02.02.2022 and 07.03.2022, but, the assessee remained non compliant. Ultimately, the Assessing Officer passed the assessment order, as noticed above.
When the appeal filed by the assessee came up before Learned CIT(A), while challenging the above said assessment order, three notices dated 16.04.2024, 15.10.2024 and 21.02.2025 came to be issued to the Juzar Mohammed Husain Bankodawala, Jaipur appellant, but, as finds mentioned in para 4 of the impugned order, the assessee remained non compliant even in the appellate proceedings.
Learned CIT(A) also observed in para 5 of the impugned order that even though in column No. 11, the assessee had mentioned that statement of facts were attached there with, actually there was no such attachment. Even no copy of any passport of the assessee was found attached, as claimed in Form No.
Learned CIT(A) also found that the appeal was filed almost 5 months after the prescribed period of limitation.
However, on going through the impugned order, we find that there is no mention therein, as to whether the office of Learned CIT(A) raised any deficiency note(s) as regards the deficiencies referred to above. Purpose of raising deficiency notes is to provide an opportunity to the party at fault to make the deficiency good. Since there is no mention in the impugned order that any opportunity was granted to the assessee-appellant to make the abovesaid deficiencies good, we deem it a fit case to set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the files of Learned CIT(A) so as to provide to the appellant- assessee an opportunity to do the needful, so as to remove the deficiencies notes or furnish its response in respect thereof.