PANKAJ KUMAR TYAGI,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), GHAZIABAD

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण
िदʟी पीठ “एस एम सी”, िदʟी
ŵी िवकास अव̾थी, Ɋाियक सद˟

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH “SMC”, DELHI
BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

आअसं.1941/िदʟी/2024 (िन.व. 2010-11)
Pankaj Kumar Tyagi,
Khara Kuwa Chowk, Shiv Mandir,
Mohan Nagar, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh 2010001

PAN: AFQPT-4982-F

...... अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant

बनाम Vs.

Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1),
Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh 201301

..... ᮧितवादी/Respondent

अपीलाथŎ Ȫारा/ Appellant by : Shri Ankur Sharma, Chartered Accountant
ŮितवादीȪारा/Respondent by : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

सुनवाई कᳱ ितिथ/ Date of hearing

:
14.01.2025

घोषणा कᳱ ितिथ/ Date of pronouncement :
:
14.01.2025

आदेश/ORDER

PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM:

This appeal by the assessee is directed against an ex-parte order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi
(hereinafter referred to as 'the CIT(A)') dated 12.03.2024, for assessment year
2010-11. 2. Shri Ankur Sharma, appearing on behalf of the assessee submits that the CIT(A) in ex-parte proceedings has confirmed the additions made by Assessing
Officer (AO). He submitted that during assessment proceedings, the assessee could not appear before the AO as notices were sent by the AO on old address of the assessee. The assessee had shifted to new premises in rented accommodation

2
during relevant period. Since, there was no service of notice on the assessee, the assesee failed to participate in assessment proceedings. The AO in ex-parte assessment made addition of Rs.12,67,800/- on account of unexplained cash deposits in saving bank account u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act’). Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). At the time of filing of appeal, the Chartered Accountant gave his email id for service of notice in Form No. 35. Neither did he reply to the notices issued by the CIT(A) nor he informed the assessee about the First Appellate proceedings. Hence, the CIT(A) decided appeal ex-parte.
3. Shri Sanjay Kumar, representing the department submitted that the assessee has been non cooperative throughout. No reply was furnished by the assessee during assessment proceeding or even during First Appellate stage. He thus, prayed for upholding impugned order and dismissing appeal of the assessee.
4. Both sides heard. Taking into consideration entire facts of the case, I deem it appropriate to restore the matter back to the AO for denovo assessment after affording reasonable opportunity of making submissions to the assessee, in accordance with law.
4. The assessee is directed to provide current address as well as functional/current email id to the AO for service of notice within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
5. The assessee upon service of notice(s) by the AO shall respond to the same, without fail.
6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

3
Order pronounced in the open court on Tue ay the 14th day of January,
2025. (VIKAS AWASTHY)

᭠याियक सद᭭य/JUDICIAL MEMBER
िदʟी/Delhi, ᳰदनांक/Dated 14.01.2025

NV/-
ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषतCopy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथᱮ/The Appellant ,
2. ᮧितवादी/ The Respondent.
3. The PCIT
4. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आय.अपी.अिध., िदʟी /DR, ITAT, िदʟी
5. गाडᭅ फाइल/Guard file.

BY ORDER,
////

(Dy./Asstt.