BHAGWAN SWAROOP,ALIGARH vs. THE I.T.O. WARD 4(1)(1), ALIGARH , ALIGARH
Facts
The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) as non-maintainable due to limitation. The CIT(A) reckoned the limitation period from the date of the assessment order, disregarding the service date of the order to the assessee. The assessment itself was made ex parte under Section 144 r.w.s. 147.
Held
The Tribunal held that the assessee was denied a reasonable opportunity of being heard at both the assessment and appellate stages. The CIT(A) issued only one notice to an incorrect email address, and the assessment proceedings also involved hurried show-cause notices with inadequate response periods, violating principles of natural justice.
Key Issues
Whether the appeal was correctly dismissed as barred by limitation, and whether the assessee was afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard during assessment and appellate proceedings.
Sections Cited
147, 144, 144B, 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA BENCH, AGRA
Before: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH & SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 276/Agr/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19
Bhagwan Swaroop, Prop. M/s. Vs. Income-tax Officer, Dileram Agrawal, C-8, Naveen Ward 4(1)(1), Aligarh. Mandi, Herduaganj, Aligarh- 202125 (UP). PAN : FHOPS3817K (Appellant) (Respondent)
Assessee by Sh. Naveen Gargh, Advocate Department by Sh. Anil Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 16.07.2025 Date of pronouncement 30.07.2025
ORDER PER : SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal has been preferred by assessee against the impugned order dated 20.03.2025 passed in Appeal No. NFAC/2017-18/10268901 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 2018-19, wherein the ld. CIT(Appeals) has dismissed assessee’s first appeal ex parte as non-maintainable, being barred by limitation.
ITA No.276/Agr/2025
The brief facts of the case are that the assessment in the present
matter was framed u/s. 147 r.w.s. sections 144 and 144B of the Income
Tax Act, 1961, vide order dated 10.03.2023, making an addition of
Rs.1,06,45,000/- on account of unexplained cash deposits in the bank
account of the assessee. The assessee filed first appeal on 18.08.2023
against this assessment order dated 10.03.2023. As per assessee, the
first appeal was filed within prescribed time limit of 30 days, as the
assessment order was served upon him on 20.07.2023 as also
mentioned in Form-35. However, the learned CIT(A) assumed a delay of
130 days, thereby treating the appeal as barred by limitation by
reckoning the limitation period from the date of the order, i.e., 10.03.2023
and dismissed the appeal as non-maintainable without deciding the
same on merits.
Perused the records and heard Ld. Representative for the
assessee and ld. Departmental representative.
Ld. Representative for the assessee submitted that the ld.
CIT(Appeals) was not justified in dismissing the appeal ex parte, in
limine, without affording reasonable opportunity to the
assessee/appellant. Further, it is submitted that only one notice was sent
by the CIT(A) on an email address other than the one provided by the
assessee in Form No. 35, thereby depriving the assessee of a 2 | P a g e
ITA No.276/Agr/2025
reasonable opportunity of being heard and to justify any purported delay.
Such a procedural lapse clearly violates the principles of natural justice. It
was further submitted that during the assessment proceedings as well,
the show cause notices dated 27.01.2023 (fixing compliance date on
01.02.2023) and 01.03.2023 (fixing compliance on 06.03.2023) allowed a
response period of less than 7 days, in contravention of the Standard
Operating Procedure (SOP) issued by the Commissioner of the Faceless
Assessment Centre, which mandates a minimum of 7 days’ time for
compliance of such notices. This hurried procedure significantly curtailed
the assessee’s right to present his case effectively and to explain the
impugned cash deposits. Reliance is placed on decision of Hon’ble
Calcutta High Court in Lake Gardens Saha Education Society vs.
Assessment unit, NFAC, New Delhi (2024) 166 taxmann.com 443
(Calcutta) and of Hon’ble Spreme Court in R.B. Shreeram Durga Prasad
& Fatehchand Nursing Das vs. Settlement Commission (1989) 43
Taxman 34(SC). Prayed to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer
for a fresh adjudication after giving the assessee an opportunity to
explain the cash deposits and to get them verified.
Learned departmental representative supported the impugned
order.
3 | P a g e
ITA No.276/Agr/2025
A perusal of the impugned order reveals the Ld. CIT(A) has issued
only one notice to the assessee that too at the email address other than
that mentioned in Form-35 and has dismissed the appeal in limine as
non-maintainable without deciding the matter on merits. The time
prescribed for filing of first appeal has to be computed from the date of
information/service of assessment order upon the assessee on
20.07.2023. In such a scenario, Ld. CIT(Appeals) wrongly assumed the
said delay. Be that as it may, a perusal of the assessment order reveals
that the reassessment was also made u/s. 144 of the Act, for which the
show cause notices issued, as noted above, do not give adequate time
for response. Such hurried proceedings further curtailed the assessee’s
ability to properly explain and substantiate the source of impugned cash
deposits. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case,
nature of addition and in the interest of justice, we are of the view that the
assessee was indeed denied a reasonable and effective opportunity of
being heard, both during the assessment and appellate stages and that
proper verification and appreciation of evidences relating to cash
deposits in the bank account can be better adjudicated at the
assessment stage. Accordingly, we deem it fit to set aside the orders of
both the authorities below and remit the matter back to the file of the
Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication. The Assessing Officer shall 4 | P a g e
ITA No.276/Agr/2025
afford a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee to present its case
and explain the nature and source of the cash deposits in question. The
assessee is also directed to cooperate in the proceedings and submit the
requisite details/evidences as required by the Assessing Officer. The
appeal is liable to be allowed accordingly.
In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 30.07.2025.
Sd/- Sd/- (BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH) (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 30.07.2025 *aks/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Agra
5 | P a g e
