Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
Before: SHRI B.M. BIYANI & SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI
आदेश/ O R D E R
Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:
Feeling aggrieved by order of first-appeal dated 06.02.2025 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 01.03.2024 passed by learned Assessment Unit of Income-tax Department [“AO”] u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 & 144B of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2016-17, the assessee has filed this appeal on the grounds mentioned in Appeal Memo (Form No. 36).
Ld. AR for assessee submits that the AO has passed assessment-order ex-parte to assessee u/s 144 after making an addition of Rs. 52,38,400/- u/s 69A treating the bank deposits as unexplained money for non- representation by assessee during assessment-proceeding. Thereafter, the CIT(A) has also passed order of first appeal ex-parte to assessee and dismissed assessee’s appeal due to non-prosecution and merely upheld AO’s order but the grounds/issues raised by assessee in first appeal requires an apt adjudication by CIT(A) on merit in accordance with provisions of 250(6) of the Act which provides “The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision.”. Ld. AR submitted that the non-representation/non-prosecution at lowers levels had occurred because the assessee was not aware of the notices sent by AO and CIT(A).
He submitted that the assessee is a RTO agent and the impugned deposits in bank a/c were made in the normal course of business of RTO agent carried on by assessee, hence the impugned deposits do not represent income of assessee and the AO is wrong in deeming entire amount of deposits as income of assessee. He submitted that the assessee is ready and willing to make a proper representation before AO if an opportunity is given and prays that the present matter should be remanded to AO for an apt adjudication.
Ld. DR for revenue submits that he would have no objection if the the case is remanded to AO with a suitable cost upon assessee and also with a stricter direction to assessee to represent his case before AO.
In view of above submissions of parties; having regard to the principle of natural justice and also bearing in mind that no prejudice would be caused to revenue if the present matter is restored at the level of AO, we remand this matter back to the file of AO for adjudication afresh, at the risk and responsibility of assessee and also subject to payment of a cost of Rs. 5,000/- by assessee to “Prime Minister National Relief Fund” and production of receipt to AO during proceedings. The AO shall give necessary opportunity of hearing to assessee and pass an appropriate order uninfluenced by his earlier order. The assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and ensure participation in the hearings as may be fixed by AO and do not seek unnecessary adjournments failing which the AO shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly.
Resultantly, this appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in open court on 28/11/2025