VIJAY KUMAR AHUJA,KALKAJI, DELHI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS, NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC)

At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that that the present appeal emanates from the order dated 10.01.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dismissing the appeal of the appellant without considering the merits and medical circumstances that prevented effective representation.

Ld. Counsel further submitted that the appellant, Mr. Vijay Kumar Ahuja, a 63-year-old commission agent registered with Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC) under Section 2(10) of Agriculture Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1997, filed his return of income for Assessment Year 2018-19 on 29.12.2018, declaring total income of Rs.10,40,105/-. The declared income comprised commission from vegetable agency business of Rs.4,23,800/-, income from house property of Rs.1,84,800/-, income from other sources of Rs. 16,505/-, and income from sale of flats of Rs.6,00,000/-.

The case was selected for limited scrutiny under the e- Assessment Scheme, 2019, focusing primarily on verification of cash deposits. The Assessing Officer noted deposits aggregating to Rs.12,12,80,697/- in Current Account No. 348201002777 and additional deposits of Rs. 93,10,899/- in Savings Account No. 0348101050090, both maintained with Canara Bank, Okhla SSI Branch. 2

During assessment proceedings, the appellant maintained and produced detailed books of accounts demonstrating the business model which operates under APMC regulations with a 7% charge structure, wherein 6% represents commission for Aarthi services and 1% constitutes APMC market fees. The operational framework involves facilitating trade between farmers and buyers, collecting sale proceeds in a fiduciary capacity, and remitting the same to farmers after deducting authorized commission and statutory fees.

Ld. Counsel submitted that despite these severe medical conditions and hospitalizations being brought to the notice of CIT(A), four notices of hearing were issued between 24.12.2020 and 16.05.2024. The appellant's physical incapacity prevented proper compliance and representation during this period.

The learned CIT(A), through order dated 10.01.2024, dismissed the appeal without considering either the merits of the case or the appellant's severe medical conditions that prevented effective representation. The order failed to appreciate:

Ld. Counsel submitted that aggrieved by the orders of both lower authorities, the appellant has approached this Hon’ble Tribunal seeking relief on both factual and legal grounds, with complete documentary evidence of business operations and medical conditions that prevented effective representation before C1T(A), warranting fresh consideration of the entire matter.

On the other hand, the Ld. DR stated that the Ld. CIT(Appeals) passed an ex parte order and expressed no objection with the matter is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for denovo assessment.

Considering the rival submissions and perusing the orders of the authorities below, we feel it appropriate to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) and restore the issues in appeal to the file of the Assessing Officer for denovo assessment after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We order accordingly. The assessee may furnish necessary evidences in support of his claims and cooperate with the assessment proceedings.

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