RAJESH,KASGANJ vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(3)(3), KASGANJ, KASGANJ
Facts
The assessee's appeal was dismissed ex parte by the CIT(A). The assessee claims he was unaware of notices due to his consultant's failure to communicate. The delay in filing the present appeal was attributed to this lack of awareness. The Assessing Officer reopened the case under Section 147 and completed the assessment under Section 144/147, assessing income at Rs. 35,00,872/-.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had remained non-responsive to notices issued by the first appellate authority. Despite the assessee's uncooperative conduct, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee an opportunity to present his submissions. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex parte in violation of principles of natural justice, and if the assessee should be granted an opportunity to present submissions.
Sections Cited
250, 147, 148, 142(1), 144
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
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 358/Agr/2025 Assessment Year: 2011-12
Rajesh, Mohalla Indrapuri, Vs. Income-tax Officer, Village-Sidhpura, Kasganj, Ward 4(3)(3), Kasganj. Etah. PAN :ALNPR9690P (Appellant) (Respondent)
Assessee by Sh. C.S. Yadav, Advocate Department by Sh. Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. DR
Date of hearing 15.10.2025 Date of pronouncement 30.10.2025
ORDER PER : SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal has been preferred by assessee against the impugned order dated 28.02.2024 passed in Appeal No. CIT (A) Aligarh/10327/2018-
19 by the Ld. ADDL/JCIT(A), Thane u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2011-12, wherein the ld. CIT(Appeals) has dismissed assessee’s appeal ex parte.
At the very outset, it is noted that this appeal was filed on 19.07.2025 against the impugned order dated 28.02.2024 by a delay of about 447 days. According to the delay condonation application, appellant states that he is a
ITA No. 358/Agr/2025
resident of village and was not aware of the notices sent on email of his
consultant, who did not communicate in respect of the impugned order to
the assessee. Assessee came to know only when he received notice dated
02.06.2025 for the recovery of demand by post. The delay condonation
application is supported with assessee’s un-rebutted affidavit, hence, the
grounds stated therein, are treated to be sufficient for the delay caused in
filing this appeal. The delay is accordingly condoned.
Brief facts state that appellant assessee is an individual. On the basis
of information available with the department that the assessee had
deposited cash of Rs.24,06,603/- in his bank account No. 30431988698
maintained with State Bank of India, Sidhpura, Kasganj and other credit
entries therein amounting to Rs.10,94,809/-, case was reopened u/s. 147 of
the Act and notice u/s. 148 with prior approval of the competent authority
was issued on 28.03.2018, but for no avail. Statutory notice u/s. 142(1) and
show cause notice u/s. 144 of the Act, were also issued and served upon
the assessee, but remained un-answered. The Assessing Officer, thus,
completed assessment u/s. 144/147 of the Act and assessed assessee’s
income at Rs.35,00,872/-, vide assessment order dated 20.12.2018.
Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before ld. CIT(Appeals),
who dismissed assessee’s first appeal ex parte.
2 | P a g e
ITA No. 358/Agr/2025
Appellant assessee has filed this appeal on the ground that ld. First
appellate authority has erred in dismissing assessee’s appeal ex parte in
violation of the principles of natural justice.
Perused the record. Heard learned representative for assessee and
learned Sr. DR for revenue.
We notice that the first appellate authority issued notices dated
21.01.2021, 28.06.2023, 10.10.2023 and 13.02.2024 to assessee, who
remained non-responsive. Learned CIT(Appeals), thus passed ex parte
impugned order, dismissing assessee’s first appeal in absence of
assessee’s explanation/submissions to explain the cash deposits and other
credits in his bank account. Perusal of assessment order also shows that
due to non-responsive conduct of the assessee, learned Assessing Officer
was compelled to pass best judgment assessment u/s. 144 of the Act. Such
an irresponsive and reluctant conduct of the assessee is unacceptable.
However, in the interest of justice, we deem it just and proper to afford an
opportunity to the appellant assessee to make his submissions before the
Assessing Officer. The matter is thus remitted back to the file of Assessing
Officer for passing order a fresh in accordance with law after taking
assessee’s submissions into consideration. We further direct the assessee
to be diligent and cooperative in attending the proceedings and making
3 | P a g e
ITA No. 358/Agr/2025
submissions before the learned Assessing Officer for the expeditious and
effective disposal. Needless to say that learned Assessing Officer shall
ensure the observance of the principles of natural justice.
In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. The
impugned order dated 28.02.2024 is set aside.
Order pronounced in the open court on 30.10.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 30.10.2025 *aks/-
