Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for AY 2015-16 was dismissed by the CIT(A) without examining the merits, and an addition of Rs. 96,27,520/- was confirmed. The assessee had failed to provide satisfactory documentation for the source of investment in agricultural land, leading to the addition under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was negligent and non-cooperative in pursuing the case before the lower authorities. However, considering the circumstances, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication, allowing an opportunity to be heard.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without proper examination of facts and materials, and whether the addition made under Section 69 was justified due to lack of proper evidence for the source of investment.
Sections Cited
250, 147, 144, 69
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT
Before: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI & SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA
(�नधा�रणवष� / Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Vindodray Khodidas Antala Vs. Income Tax Officer, wd – 2(1)(1), C/O. Shree Jay Ambe Agro Fuel, Opp. Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Ring Atul Oilcake, Jetpur Road, Road, Rajkot-360001 Rajkot-360410 �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ABPPA8695M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Kuldeep K. Adesara, Ld. AR Respondent by : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 20/08/2025 Date of Pronouncement : 14/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JM:
Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year 2015-16, is directed against the order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”),National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)-Delhi, Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal), dated 26.02.2025, which in turn arises out of an order passed by the Assessing Officer, u/s 147 r.w.s.144 of the Act, on 26.03.2022.
Grounds of appeal
raised by the assessee are as follows:
1. The learned Commissioner of Income (Appeals), Income Tax Department, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi erred is dismissing appeal of the Appellant in absence of examining all facts and materials on record and in absence of giving detailed reasoned order.
2. The learned Commissioner of Income (Appeals), Income Tax Department, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi erred in dismissing appeal of the Appellant by confirming the addition of Rs. 96,27,520/- made by learned Assessing Officer u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y. 2015-16.
3. The learned Commissioner of Income (Appeals), Income Tax Department, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi erred in holding that Appellant failed to prove the source of investment in property amounting to the tune of Rs. 96,27,520/- for A.Y. 2015-16 u/s 69 of Income Tax Act, 1961.
4. The learned Commissioner of Income (Appeals), Income Tax Department, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi erred in holding that unexplained investment in the property made by the Appellant amounts to the tune of Rs. 96,27,520/- without considering the fact that the said Agricultural land was purchased by three individuals including the Appellant by paying aggregate consideration of Rs. 95,00,000/- and stamp duty of Rs. 5,81,600/- 5. The learned Commissioner of Income (Appeals). Income Tax Department, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi erred in confirming the finding of learned Assessing Officer holding that aggregate consideration of Rs. 95,00,000/- and stamp duty of Rs. 5,81,600/- was paid by the Appellant alone in absence of verifying the Purchase Deed as per which 1/3rd of aggregate sale consideration and stamp duty was paid by the Appellant being one of the three individuals purchasing the said Agricultural Land. 6. The learned Commissioner of Income (Appeals), Income Tax Department, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi erred in not complying the provisions of Section 250(4) and Section 250(6) of Income Tax Act, 1961 before passing impugned order by not examining the purchase deed of the Agricultural Land in question. 7. The learned Commissioner of Income (Appeals), Income Tax Department, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi erred in holding that provisions of Section 250(4) and Section 250(6) of Income Tax Act, 1961 are not required to be complied if the Appellant has not made any written submissions in response to various hearing notices issued u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8. The learned Commissioner of Income (Appeals), Income Tax Department, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi erred in holding that Appellant is not aggrieved with the Assessment order and is not interested in prosecuting the same and on the said basis further erred in confirming the addition made by the learned Assessing Officer. 9. The learned Commissioner of Income (Appeals), Income Tax Department, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi erred in not considering that provisions of Section 250(4) and Section 250(6) of Income Tax Act, 1961 are required to be complied and facts and materials on record are required to be examined even when Appellant has not made any written submissions in response to various hearing notices issued u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The learned Commissioner of Income (Appeals), Income Tax Department, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi erred in not considering that in any case an amount only to the tune of Rs. 33,60,533/- being 1/3rd share paid by the Appellant for purchase of Agricultural Land in question out of aggregate amount of Rs. 1,00,81,600/- paid by three individuals consisting of Rs. 95,00,000/- paid for sale consideration and Rs. 5,81,600/- paid for Stamp duty could be treated as unexplained source of investment in property u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y. 2015-16.
Alternatively in any case without prejudice to the above grounds raised by the Appellant, if the addition of Rs. 96,27,520/- made by learned Assessing Officer u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y. 2015-16 and confirmed by learned Commissioner of Income (Appeals), Income Tax Department, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi is confirmed by this Hon'ble Tribunal, it be hold and declare that the cost of acquisition of the Agricultural land in question for A.Y. 2015-16 in the hands of the Appellant amounts to Rs. 1,00,81,600/- though being purchased by three individuals. Your Appellant craves leave to reverse his right to add / alter / amend and / or substitute any / or all grounds on or before the date of hearing.
Brief facts of the case that the case of the assessee was reopened. The notice u/s. 148 was issued to which the assessee could not complied with. That an ex- party assessment has been made with the addition of Rs.9627520/- on dated 26.03.2022.
That the assessee filed an appeal against the order dated 26.03.2022. In the office of the Ld. CIT(A), Rajkot. The appeal was dismissed with following observation:
“4. In case no response is received by the given time and date, the assessment shall be finalized as per the draft assessment order." The Appellant has not responded to the above show cause notice. Hence, the AO proceeded to make the impugned addition of Rs.96,27,520/- u/s 69.
In the course of present proceedings, the Appellant has simply submitted details of unsecured loans received from some persons. However, the same is not supported with any confirmation from these persons. The Appellant has also not submitted any documents, like their bank statements, ITRs filed by them, etc, evidencing their creditworthiness. Thus, the Appellant has failed to furnish identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the loan lenders. In view of the same, the source of investment in the property amounting to Rs.96,27,520/- remains unexplained. In view of the same, I uphold the addition of Rs.96,27,520/- made by the AO u/s 69 of the Act. Appeal is, thus, dismissed on merits as well.
In the result, the Appeal is hereby dismissed”
That the assessee filed an appeal against the impugned order dated 26.02.2025 before the Tribunal.
6. During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee.
On the contrary, the Ld. Sr. DR for the revenue has not objected to the prayer of the Ld. AR.
We have heard both the parties and perused the documents available on record. We note that various notices have been issued by the Ld. CIT(A), but there was no compliance to the notice by the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) disposed off the appeal by an ex-parte order without adjudication on merit. We note that the assessee has not gave due care and attention to the case and negligent in pursuing the case and the assessee has also a non-cooperative attitude in pursuing the case for A.Y. 2015-16. We direct the assessee to deposit a cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the Prime Minster Relief fund (Government of India), the receipt is to be submitted with the Registrar of this Tribunal. We are of the view that an opportunity should be given to the assessee to present his case before the Lower Authority. We further note that the Ld. AO has also passed an assessment order u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act. after considering the above facts and circumstances, we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of Ld. AO for fresh adjudication on merit after giving due opportunity to the assessee of being heard.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 14-10-2025.