Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal against the CIT(Appeals) order was heard ex-parte as the assessee did not appear. The CIT(Appeals) had confirmed an addition of Rs. 12,20,000/- as unexplained money due to the assessee's failure to provide documentary evidence. The assessment order was passed under section 143(3) for non-compliance.
Held
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(Appeals) had not discussed the issue on merits and dismissed the appeal due to non-appearance. To ensure natural justice, the Tribunal decided to set aside the CIT(Appeals) order and remit the matter back, granting one more opportunity to the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(Appeals) order passed ex-parte without considering the merits of the case is sustainable, and if a fresh opportunity should be granted to the assessee.
Sections Cited
143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA-GAUHATI ‘e-COURT’, SMC, KOLKATA
Before: Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Vice-(KZ) & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu
Per Duvvuru RL Reddy, Vice-President (KZ):- The present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 13th February, 2025 passed for Assessment Year 2017-18.
(A.Y. 2017-2018) Dharam Chand Ranka 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing. Therefore, we have decided to dispose of the appeal after hearing the ld. Departmental Representative and perusing the material available on record.
At the time of hearing, ld. Departmental Representative stated that the ld. CIT(Appeals) has passed the order ex-parte confirming the addition of Rs.12,20,000/- as unexplained money of the assessee as the assessee failed to produce satisfactory documentary evidences in support of his claim inspite of sufficient opportunities given. He also submitted that even the assessment order has been passed under section 143 (3) of the Income Tax Act determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.13,08,110/- as the assessee did not offer any explanation about the source of cash deposit during demonetization period. He, therefore, supported the order of ld. CIT(Appeals).
We have perused the material available on record. A perusal of the impugned order clearly shows that as there was no response to the notices to substantiate the claim with documentary evidences and submissions, ld. CIT(Appeals) confirmed the addition made by the ld. Assessing Officer. It is also evident that the ld. CIT(Appeals) has not discussed the issue on merits and dismissed the appeal due to non-appearance. We also find that the assessment order has been passed u/s. 143(3) as the assessee did not offer any explanation about the source of cash deposit during demonetization period and remained non-compliant in support of the claim. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to set aside the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals)
(A.Y. 2017-2018) Dharam Chand Ranka and in order to meet the principle of natural justice, remit the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(Appeals) with a direction to provide one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. At the same breath, we also hereby caution the assessee to promptly co-operate with the proceedings before the ld. CIT(Appeals) failing which the ld. CIT(Appeals) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law and merits based on the materials available on the record. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 22/01/2026.