Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's case was reopened due to a significant credit of Rs. 4,58,99,715 in his bank account, which was not commensurate with his ITR. The Assessing Officer treated this amount as unexplained cash credit under Section 68. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal due to non-prosecution.
Held
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) is obligated to dispose of appeals on merits and is not empowered to dismiss them for non-prosecution. Therefore, the tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for a fresh decision on merits, after providing the assessee an adequate opportunity to be heard.
Key Issues
The key legal issues were the validity of the addition under Section 68 as unexplained cash credit, the legality of the reassessment proceedings, and the CIT(A)'s dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution without deciding on merits.
Sections Cited
Section 68, Section 148, Section 250, Section 251, Section 127
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR
Before: SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM & SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, AM
O R D E R
Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, AM:
This appeal for Assessment Year (‘AY’) 2018-19 filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 11.08.2025 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [‘CIT(A)’] passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’).
The appellant assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: -
1. Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing appeal without considering adjournment application filed by appellant. Resultantly, the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is illegal and unsustainable.
1. Aftab Siddique vs. DCIT-1(1), Raipur
2. Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 4,58,99,715/- made by AO on account of cash credit treating it to be unexplained invoking sec. 68. The addition made by AO and confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) is illegal, arbitrary and not justified.
3. Without prejudice to ground no. 2, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by CIT(A) is illegal inasmuch as provisions of sec. 68 is not applicable in the facts of the case.
The assessment order passed by the AO is illegal inasmuch as notice u/s 148 issued by AO is invalid and illegal. The assessment order is liable to be quashed. Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition based on illegal assessment order.
5. Initiation of reassessment proceedings Nil and consequent reassessment order passed is illegal without jurisdiction, ab initio vold. The reassessment order is liable to be quashed. Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition based on illegal assessment order.
6. The assessment order passed by the AO is without jurisdiction and is contrary to law inasmuch as jurisdiction for passing the reassessment order vested with Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) whereas it was passed by JAO. Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition based on illegal assessment order.
7. The assessment order passed by AO is without jurisdiction, contrary to law inasmuch as the AO passing the assessment order did not acquire jurisdiction as no order u/s 127 was passed for transfer of case from Central Circle, Raipur to ACIT-1(1), Raipur. Reassessment order is liable to be quashed. Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition based on illegal assessment order."
The appellant reserves the right to add, amend or alter any ground/s of appeal.”
3. The relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are that the assessee filed his Income Tax Return (‘ITR’) on 30.03.2019 declaring income of Rs.16,38,150/-. 2 Aftab Siddique vs. DCIT-1(1), Raipur Later, the Ld. Assessing Officer (‘AO’) re-opened the case on the reasoning that the credit in the assessee’s bank account aggregating to Rs.4,58,99,715/- was not commensurate with the ITR and thus, the same had escaped assessment. The consequential re-opened assessment was completed by taxing the sum of Rs.4,58,99,715/- as un-explained credit chargeable to tax under section 68 of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal due to non-prosecution as under: - 3 Aftab Siddique vs. DCIT-1(1), Raipur 4 Aftab Siddique vs. DCIT-1(1), Raipur
4. Before us, the assessee was not represented by anyone. Therefore, we heard Dr. Priyanka Patel, Ld. Sr. DR as there was no compliance on the part of the assessee. The Ld. Sr. DR argued the case vehemently and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
We have heard the Ld. Sr. DR at length and have perused the materials available on the record. We have taken note of the fact that the Ld. CIT(A) has not decided the sole ground of appeal
raised before him after discussing the issue in detail and his reasons for agreeing with the assessment order though he/she, as per provisions of section 250(6) of the Act, is obliged to dispose of the appeal in writing with well-reasoned order on each point of determination arisen for his consideration. It is evident from the perusal of section 251(1)(a), 251(1)(b) and Explanation of section 251(2) of the Act that the CIT(A) is required to apply his/her mind to all the issues which arise from the impugned order before him/her, whether or not these issues have been raised by the assessee before him/her. On 5. Aftab Siddique vs. DCIT-1(1), Raipur cumulative consideration of the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act read with sections 250(4), 250(5), 251(1)(a), 251(1)(b) of the Act and Explanation of section 251(2) of the Act, the CIT(A) is not empowered to dismiss the appeal for non- prosecution of appeal and is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits.
We have heard the Ld. Sr. DR and perused the material available on the record. We take note of the fact that the Ld. CIT(A) has decided the case ex-parte and not on the merits. Considering the facts in entirety and without offering any comment on merit of the case, we deem it fit to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the case afresh/denovo, in accordance with the law, after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the appellant assessee. Ordered accordingly. The appellant assessee, no doubt, shall cooperate in remitted appellate proceedings.
In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 09/02/2026. (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) (AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA) "ाियक सद" / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद" / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER रायपुर / Raipur; िदनांक Dated 09/02/2026 HKS, PS आदेश की "ितिलिप अ"ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. अपीलाथ"/ The Appellant 2. ""थ"/ The Respondent 3. The Pr. CIT, Raipur (C.G.)
6 Aftab Siddique vs. DCIT-1(1), Raipur