MOHAR SINGH RAJPUT,GWALIOR vs. ITO1(1), GWALIOR
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA BENCH, AGRA
Before: SHRI M. BALAGANESH & SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 221/Agr/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16
Mohar Singh Rajput, Vs. Income-tax Officer, Gram Kakarda, Tehsil-Chinore, Ward 1(1), Gwalior Gwalior (MP) PAN : CHXPS3090L (Appellant) (Respondent)
Assessee by None Department by Sh. Anil Kumar, Sr. DR
Date of hearing 18.09.2025 Date of pronouncement 29.09.2025
ORDER PER : SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal has been preferred by assessee against the impugned order dated 26.06.2024 passed in Appeal No. NFAC/2014-15/10228453 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 2015-16, wherein learned CIT(Appeals) has dismissed assessee’s first appeal ex parte. 2. At the very outset, we notice that there is a delay of 237 days in filing this appeal on 21.04.2025 against the impugned order dated 26.06.2024. The delay condonation application on behalf of the assessee is available on
ITA No.221/Agr/2025
record, wherein it has been stated that the assessee was solely dependent
upon his counsel, who failed to make representation and submissions before
both the revenue authorities below. Assessee came to know in respect of the
impugned order only when penalty order dated 27.03.2025 u/s. 271(1)(c) was
passed, levying penalty.
It is well established principle of law that the substantial justice cannot
be denied on technical aberrations. The object of prescribing procedure is to
advance the cause of justice. In an adversial justice system like ours, no party
should ordinarily be denied the opportunity of participating in the process of
justice dispensation. Justice is the goal of jurisprudence. Any interpretation
which eludes or frustrates the recipient of justice, is not to be followed. The
object of prescribing certain time period for filing of the appeal is to expedite
the proceedings before the concerned authorities and to advance the cause of
justice. In the totality of facts and circumstances, we condone the delay in
filing the appeal.
Brief facts state that the assessee carried on the business of sale of
recharge vouchers and sim of Vodafone Idea Ltd. at a small place of his
village under District Gwalior. Assessee did not file return of income for the
assessment year 2015-16. According to the information available with the
department, assessee deposited cash of Rs.93,03,650/- in bank account
maintained in Central Bank of India during the assessment year 2015-16. 2 | P a g e
ITA No.221/Agr/2025
Assessee also entered into transactions of commission or brokerage with Idea
Cellular Limited to the tune of Rs.1,035/- during the year under consideration.
The Assessing Officer believed that the income has escaped assessment.
Assessing Officer issued notice u/s. 148. However, the assessee did not
respond. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s. 142(1) and show
cause notice u/s. 144, but for no avail. In the circumstances, Assessing Officer
carried out assessment on the basis of material available on record and added
aforesaid amounts totaling to Rs.93,04,685/- in the total income of the
assessee.
Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals),
where the assessee again remained irresponsive. The ld. CIT(Appeals)
accordingly passed ex parte impugned order in default of the assessee.
Assessee has filed this appeal on the ground that the said addition may
be deleted by admitting additional evidence.
Perused the records. None responded for the assessee. Heard ld. DR
for the revenue.
We notice that the assessment order 20.03.2023 passed by ld.
Assessing Officer is based on the best judgment assessment u/s. 144 r/w sec.
147 of the Act. Similarly, the impugned order dated 26.06.2024 passed by ld.
CIT(Appeals) is also ex parte. We further notice that the assessee did not
respond to various notices issued by ld. CIT(Appeals) on 01.05.2023, 3 | P a g e
ITA No.221/Agr/2025
05.03.2024, 27.05.2024 and 10.06.2024. It is, however, noticed that learned
CIT(Appeals) passed ex-parte impugned order 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. As the orders of
both the authorities below are ex parte, we deem it just and proper to restore
the matter back to the file of learned Assessing Officer, before whom, the
assessee may file submissions along with evidences in support of his case.
Learned Assessing Officer, after due verification of the evidence produced
before him, shall pass order afresh in accordance with law. Needless to say
that learned Assessing Officer shall ensure the observance of the principles of
natural justice. The appeal is liable to be allowed for statistical purposes
accordingly.
In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 29.09.2025.
Sd/- Sd/- (M. BALAGANESH) (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 29.09.2025 *aks/-
