MOHAMMAD SHAMIM UDDIN,GAYA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1), GAYA, GAYA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 43/PAT/2025Status: DisposedITAT Patna17 September 2025AY 2017-2018Bench: the learned CIT(A). However, due to non-compliance on various dates, the CIT(A) sustained the additions by passing an ex parte order, sustaining the order of the Assessing officer. 4. Dissatisfied with the above order the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. Despite repeated notices issued by the Registry, neither the assessee nor his learned AR appeared. We cannot keep the matter pending indefinitely. Therefore, with the assistance of the learned DR and on perusal of the material av1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed for statistical purposes

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s order was ex parte and dismissed for non-prosecution without proper examination of the issues. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to grant the assessee another opportunity.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed a return of income declaring ₹6,49,181/-. The Assessing Officer made additions of ₹26,19,600/- for unexplained cash deposits and ₹3,64,741/- for business income. The CIT(A) sustained these additions due to the assessee's non-compliance.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without proper examination, and if the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present their case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 69A,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, PATNA

For Respondent: Shri Rajat Datta, CIT-DR

Mohammad Shamim Uddin, Ward No. 16, Pachhaati, Bodh Gaya, Bihar - 824031 [PAN: AOPPS9144A] ..…...…………….... Appellant vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Gaya – 823001 ..…...…………….... Respondent Appearances by: Assessee represented by : None Department represented by : Shri Rajat Datta, CIT-DR Date of concluding the hearing : 16.09.2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 17.09.2025 O R D E R

PER SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

1.

This appeal arises from order dated 29.12.2021, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”) by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereafter “the Ld. CIT(A)].

2.

Brief facts of the Case are that the assessee, a individual, filed return of income declaring total income of ₹6,49,181/-. The Assessing Officer completed assessment under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, making the following additions:

₹ 26,19,600/- under section 69A of the Act on account of unexplained cash deposits and ₹3,64,741/- under the head “business income”. Accordingly, the total income was assessed at a higher figure.

Mohammad Shamim Uddin 3. Aggrieved by the above order the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). However, due to non-compliance on various dates, the CIT(A) sustained the additions by passing an ex parte order, sustaining the order of the Assessing officer.

4.

Dissatisfied with the above order the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. Despite repeated notices issued by the Registry, neither the assessee nor his learned AR appeared. We cannot keep the matter pending indefinitely. Therefore, with the assistance of the learned DR and on perusal of the material available on record, we proceed to decide the appeal on merits.

5.

On going through the order of the learned CIT(A), we find that the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution without proper examination of the issues involved. The order is thus ex parte in nature. In our considered opinion, in the interest of justice and fair play, one more opportunity should be granted to the assessee to present his case before the first appellate authority. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file for fresh adjudication, after affording due opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

6.

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

Order pronounced on 17.09.2025

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →