YAKUB IBRAHIM DOBA,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 2(2)(5), SURAT

Facts of the case in brief are that assessee had filed his return of income on 28.03.2016 declaring total income at Rs.1,98,030/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny through CASS. During the assessment proceedings, notices u/s.143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued to the assessee seeking details on relevant issues. In response to the same, written submission was filed by the assessee. It was observed that during the year under consideration, assessee had purchased two immovable properties along with other 2 co-owners and there was difference of Rs.52,68,777/- between their purchase considerations and fair market value determined by the stamp duty valuation authority. On the aforesaid difference of Rs.52,68,777/-, provision of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act was attracted. The AO issued show cause notice on 11.11.2015 and its reminder on 24.11.2016 to the assessee. However, no reply/explanation was furnished in its compliance. The aforesaid difference of Rs.52,68,777/- was, therefore, added to the total income of the assessee u/s.56(2)(vi)(b) of the Act. assessment order.

Aggrieved by the addition made by AO, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). In appellate proceedings, the CIT(A) issued notice of hearing on 23.12.2020.

Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), assessee has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that necessary details/documents were filed in response to the notices issued by the CIT(A) from time to time. Besides, no remand report has been called for from the AO by the CIT(A). On the contrary, CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee without adjudicating the same on merits. Therefore, it was prayed that order of CIT(A) may be set aside and remitted to the file of CIT(A).

On the other hand, Ld. Sr. DR relied on the order of lower authorities. He would, however, have no objection if the matter may be restored back to the file of CIT(A).

We have heard both the parties and perused the materials on record. The Ld. AR has argued that the CIT(A) has passed order without giving reasonable and sufficient opportunities of being heard to assessee. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of assessee by passing a mechanical order without discussing merits of the case. He has simply confirmed the addition made by AO without elaborating the issues in a proper manner. Ld. AR argued that appellate orders of the CIT(A) are to state the points arising in the appeal, the decision of the authority thereon and the reasons for such decisions. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submission of Ld. AR that the Assessing Office made addition for the want of evidence, which was confirmed by CIT(A) in ex parte order, we are of the considered view that the assessee deserves one more opportunity to contest its case on merit. Accordingly, without delving deeper into the merits of the case, in the interest of justice, we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of CIT(A) to pass fresh appellate order in accordance with law after granting adequate opportunity of hearing to assessee. The assessee is directed to be vigilant and to furnish all details and explanation as needed by CIT(A) by not seeking adjournment without valid reason. The ground of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in accordance with Rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 On 26/09/2025 in the open court. Sd/- Sd/- (SANJAY GARG) (BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH) �याियक सद�य/JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद�य/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER सूरत /Surat