ANKIT GUPTA,ALLAHABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE- 1(1) , ALLAHABAD

The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and engaged in the business of two wheeler dealership of Honda Motor & Scooter India Ltd. and authorized workshop of Honda Motor & Scooter India Ltd. in the name and style of M/s Shree Grand Auto. The assessee filed his return of income on 29/10/2017, showing an income of Rs.83,58,440/-. The case was selected for scrutiny by CASS. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment and passed assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act on 06/12/2019 and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.2,49,13,482/- by making addition of Rs.1,65,55,042/- on account of unexplained capital addition u/s 68 of the I. T. Act. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A). Vide impugned appellate order dated 20/05/2025, the learned CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

During the course of hearing in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, none was present on behalf of the assessee. In the absence of any representation from the assessee’s side, learned Departmental Representative for Revenue was heard and materials available on record were perused. The learned Sr. D.R. for Revenue relied on the assessment order, and the impugned order of learned CIT(A). He also opposed remanding back of the matter to either of the two lower authorities relying on the decision of CIT vs. SAS Educational Society [2009] 319 ITR 65 (P&H).

Learned Department Representative was heard and materials on record have been perused. In ground 8 of the appeal, the appellant assessee has stated that the appellant was under a bonafide belief that his counsel was submitting the response in the appellate proceedings before the CIT(A); however, in the absence of reaponse, an ex-parte appellate order had been passed by the learned CIT(A) alleging that the findings given by the Assessing Officer could not be rebutted by the appellant. As the appellant assessee has not been represented properly before learned CIT(A), we consider it fit in the interest of substantial justice, in the facts and circumstances of this specific case, to provide another opportunity to the assessee to present its case before the learned CIT(A). Accordingly, the impugned order of learned CIT(A) is set aside and the issue in dispute regarding the aforesaid addition of Rs.1,65,55,042/- is restored back to the file of the learned CIT(A) with the direction to pass fresh order in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee.