BINOD CHOUDHARY,RAMGARH, JHARKHAND vs. INOCME TAX OFFICEF, RAMGARH

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”) dated 24.09.2024 passed under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”).

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and a non-filer of income-tax return. In the case of the assessee, information was received from the Annual Information Report (AIR)/AL, on the basis of which the Assessing Officer initiated proceedings under the Income- tax Act. Accordingly, notice under section 148 of the Act, followed by proceedings under section 148A(b), was issued to the assessee. It was the contention of the assessee that since the taxable income was below the prescribed threshold, no return of income was filed for Assessment Year 2015–16. However, it was noticed by the Assessing Officer that the Binod Choudhary assessee’s bank account reflected transactions running into crores of rupees, allegedly arising from sale of immovable property, whereas the expenses incurred were stated to be more than the declared sale consideration. The assessee failed to furnish any supporting evidence to substantiate the nature and source of such transactions. Consequently, the Assessing Officer made an addition of ₹4,10,01,024/- in the hands of the assessee.

Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). However, the said appeal was dismissed solely on the ground of delay in filing, without adjudicating the multiple grounds raised by the assessee on merits, and the order of the Assessing Officer was sustained on this technical ground alone.

Before the Tribunal, the assessee submitted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without properly considering the submissions and merit of the case. It was contended that issued raised in the appeal were never adjudicated. Therefore the appellate order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice.

Upon consideration of the matter, we find that the appeal of the assessee was dismissed only on account of delay, without any examination of the merits of the case. In our considered view, the interests of justice and fairness demand that the learned CIT(A) should examine the issues involved and adjudicate the matter on merits after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, the matter deserves to be restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Kolkata, the 21st January, 2026.