HARDIK NAGJIBHAI DHAMELIYA,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD3(2)(1), SURAT
Facts
During assessment, additions were made by the AO for unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Act. The assessee's appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was dismissed due to non-appearance despite several notices. The assessee's counsel submitted it was due to a mistake and lack of information from a consultant.
Held
The Tribunal observed that the assessee had provided details to the AO, but failed to appear before the Ld. CIT(A). Considering the interest of justice and the quantum of additions, the matter was restored to the Ld. CIT(A) for de-novo consideration with a cost of Rs. 5,000/- payable to the Prime Minister Relief Fund.
Key Issues
Restoration of appeal dismissed for non-appearance before CIT(A) and imposition of cost.
Sections Cited
69
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH, SURAT
Before: SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 431/SRT/2024 (Assessment Year: 2020-21) Hardik Nagjibhai Dhameliya, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 3/4, Royal Park Society, Karada Ward-3(2)(1), Road, Katagram, Surat-395004 Surat [PAN No.AYRPD2395L] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Raj Shah, C.A. Respondent by: Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. DR 24.03.2025 Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement 25.03.2025 O R D E R PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL - JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”), National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short “NFAC”), Delhi vide order dated 08.03.2024 passed for A.Y. 2020-21.
The brief facts of the case are that during the course of assessment, certain additions were made by the Assessing Officer as unexplained investment in the hands of the assessee under Section 69 of the Act. In appeal, Ld. CIT(A) noted that in spite of issuance of several notices of hearing, the assessee did not cause appearance and accordingly, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed on account of non-appearance.
ITA No.431/Srt/2024 Hardik Nagjibhai Dhameliya vs. ITO Asst.Year –2020-21 - 2– 3. The assessee is in appeal before us against the aforesaid order passed by Ld. CIT(A) confirming the additions made by the Ld. CIT(A).
Before us, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has a good case on merits and if given an opportunity of being heard, the assessee would be able demonstrate that the additions made in the hands of the assessee are liable to be deleted. The Counsel for the assessee admitted that it was due to mistake of the Counsel of the assessee that he could not cause appearance. Accordingly, the Counsel for the assesse submitted that the matter may be restored to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for de- novo consideration, in the interest of justice.
On going through the facts of the instant case, we observe that the assessee had filed certain details before the Assessing Officer in support of his case. However, the assessee did not cause appearance before Ld. CIT(A) despite issuance of several notices of hearing. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee filed an Affidavit that stating that it was due to lack of information received by the assessee from his consultant that the appeal of the assessee was dismissed on ex-parte basis vide order dated 08.03.2024. Looking into the instant facts in the interest of justice, the matter is hereby restored to the of Ld. CIT(A) for de-novo consideration after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The appeal is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) also keeping into consideration the quantum of additions involved in the instant case.
ITA No.431/Srt/2024 Hardik Nagjibhai Dhameliya vs. ITO Asst.Year –2020-21 - 3– 6. The Ld. D.R. also did not object to the matter being restored to the file of Ld. CIT(A) in the interest of justice.
In the result, the matter is hereby restored to the file of Ld. CIT(A) with a direction that in case there is further non-compliance on the part of the assessee, then Ld. CIT(A) would be at liberty to pass appropriate orders on the basis of materials available on record in accordance with law. Since, the Counsel for the assessee has not given any sound and cogent reasons for non-appearance before the Tax Authorities, the assessee is directed to pay a cost Rs. 5,000/- to be paid to the Prime Minister Relief Fund for getting the matter restored to the file of Ld. CIT(A).
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced under proviso to Rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 on 25/03/2025
Sd/- Sd/- (BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH) (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 25/03/2025 TANMAY, Sr. PS TRUE COPY 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)- िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, सूरत / DR, ITAT, Surat 5. 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,
उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, सूरत/ ITAT, Surat
