Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed a return of income declaring Rs. 20,89,560. The revenue found an unaccounted amount of Rs. 95,00,000 in the assessee's bank account, which was routed through a shell company and given to the assessee's daughter. The Assessing Officer assessed the total income at Rs. 8,37,66,315.
Held
The CIT(Appeals) dismissed the assessee's appeal ex parte without substantial discussion on merits and without providing adequate opportunity for hearing, violating the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal noted the lack of substantial discussion on merits and the violation of natural justice.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(Appeals) erred in dismissing the assessee's appeal ex parte without providing adequate opportunity of hearing and without substantial discussion on merits.
Sections Cited
250, 147, 144B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA BENCH, AGRA
Before: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN & SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH
ORDER PER : SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal has been preferred by assessee against the impugned order dated 13.06.2025 passed in Appeal No. NFAC/2018-19/10356930 by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2019-20, wherein the ld. CIT(Appeals) has dismissed assessee’s first appeal ex parte.
Brief facts state that the assessee filed his return of income for A.Y. 2019-20 on 25.11.2019, declaring total income at Rs.20,89,560/-. It was found by revenue that an unaccounted amount of Rs.95,00,000/- was in assessee’s SBI bank account routed through shell/paper company, M/s.
Oasis Trade Wings Private Ltd., which was further given to assessee’s daughter Deepanshi Garg to invest the same in commodity trading. On the basis of this information, various notices were issued to the assessee, who submitted his reply. After considering the assessee’s response, learned Assessing Officer assessed total income of assessee at Rs.8,37,66,315/- u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, vide assessment order dated 18.03.2024.
Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals), who dismissed assessee’s first appeal ex parte.
Assessee has preferred this second appeal on the ground, in addition to others on merits, that the ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in dismissing assessee’s appeal without allowing adequate opportunity of hearing in violation of principles of natural justice.
Perused the records and heard learned representative for assessee and learned CIT/ DR for revenue.
At the very outset, we notice that ld. CIT(Appeals) issued various notices to assessee on 20.12.2024, 11.02.2025, 17.04.2025 and 29.05.2025. However, assessee remained non-responsive and did not file any submission before the first appellate authority. Learned CIT(Appeals) proceeded to decide the appeal ex parte and dismissed assessee’s appeal. 2 | P a g e We note that learned CIT(Appeals), though, passed ex-parte impugned order but without any substantial discussion on the merits of the case, whereas learned CIT(Appeals) was expected to state the points for determination, decision thereon and the reasons for the decision as provided u/s. 250(6) of the Act. We, therefore, deem it just and appropriate to remit the matter back to the file of learned CIT(A) for adjudication a fresh on merits after affording opportunity of hearing to the assessee. We direct the assessee to be cooperative in attending the hearings and making submissions before the learned CIT(A) for the expeditious and effective disposal. Needless to say, that learned CIT(A) shall ensure the observance of the principles of natural justice. The appeal is, thus, liable to be allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
The impugned order dated 13.06.2025 is set aside.
Order pronounced in the open court on 26.11.2025.