SATTAMUTHU PANDIMURUGESAN,MADURAI vs. ITO, NCW-1(5), MADURAI

This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order dated 24.07.2025, passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), NFAC, Delhi (in short “ld.CIT(A)”) for the assessment year (A.Y) 2020-21 against the order u/s.147 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’) passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) dated 28.02.2025.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and proprietor of M/s.Balaji Traders and had not filed its return of income for A.Y.2020-21. Based on the information available with the department, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee shown total sales to the tune of Rs.2,51,99,000/- and transactions of cash deposits/withdrawals to the tune of Rs.3,63,33,000/- into his bank account maintained with TMB and Canara Bank, the Assessing Officer issued statutory notices and details called for. In response to the notice, the assessee ITR filed u/s.148 on 28.02.2024, declaring total income of Rs.4,61,670/- and submitted the reply along with supporting documents for consideration. On perusal of the details submitted by the assessee, the AO made a total addition to the tune of Rs.9,54,878/- as disallowance of bogus purchase by arriving a total income of Rs.14,16,550/- and concluded the assessment proceedings by passing an order u/s.147 r.w.s 144B of the Act dated 28.02.2025.

Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi on 28.12.2016.

At the outset, we observed that ld.CIT(A) has provided three opportunities for the assessee to appear for hearings as detailed in paragraph 5.1 of the ld.CIT(A) order to support the appeal of the assessee. However, the assessee chose to be silent and did not respond to any of the notices and hence, the ld. CIT(A) passed an order dated 24.07.2025 by confirming the order of the Assessing Officer.

The ld.AR submitted that the assessee is senior citizen from a rural background and is not well-versed in handling of computers or navigating income tax portal and hence the assessee was not aware of the notices issued by the ld.CIT(A) and hence he could not appear before the ld.CIT(A). In view of the above, the ld.AR prayed to set aside the order of ld.CIT(A) and remit the issues to the file of ld.CIT(A). Further, ld.AR assured the bench that the ld.AR will represent on behalf of the assessee before the first appellant authority to complete the appellate proceedings effectively.

Per contra, the ld.DR submitted that both the Assessing Officer and the ld.CIT(A) provided sufficient opportunity to appear before them. However, the assessee has been negligent in responding to the statutory notices and hence, prayed for confirming the order of the ld.CIT(A).

Therefore, in the present facts and circumstances of the case and to meet the ends of justice, we are deeming it fit to provide one more opportunity to the assessee and hence we set aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file to ld.CIT(A) to adjudicate the matter afresh in accordance to law, after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Needless to say, assessee to be diligent and file written submissions and relevant documents if advised so.

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