DHARAM SINGH FAUZADAR,MATHURA vs. ITO,WARD 1(3)(1), MATHURA

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA

BEFORE : SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA No. 467/Agr/2025 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Dharam Singh Fauzadar V ITO, Ward 1(3)(1), 216/353D, Krishna Nagar, Mathura Sonkh Road, Mathura – 281 001 PAN : AABPF1531A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by Shri Ankur Agrawal, C.A. Department by Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR

Date of hearing 19/01/2026 Date of pronouncement 20/02/2026

ORDER PER SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated 12.08.2025 passed in Appeal No. NFAC/2012-13/10270160 by the Ld. Commissioner of Income– tax(Appeals)/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”] u/s. 250 of the Income tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "Act"] for the Assessment year [A.Y.] 2013-14, wherein learned CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s appeal exparte. 2. The brief facts under appeal state that the assessee did not file his return of income for A.Y. 2013-14. The assesses’s case was reopened u/s 147 of the Act. The impugned assessment order was passed on 22.05.2023 u/s 147/144B of the Act after taking assessee’s response into consideration. The assessing officer determined assessee’s total income at Rs. 92,91,243/-. Aggrieved, assessee preferred 1st appeal before learned CIT(A), who 3. dismissed assessee’s appeal exparte.

2 ITA No. 467/Agr/2025 Shri Dharam Singh Fauzadarv ITO, Ward 1(3)(1), Mathura 4. Assessee has filed this second appeal on the ground that learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 89,12,573/- u/s 69A as unexplained deposits without appreciating the facts and documents submitted by the assessee. 5. We have perused the records. Heard learned representatives for the appellant assessee and Ld. Sr. DR for the respondent revenue. 6. Learned representative for the assessee has, at the very outset submitted that the impugned order has been passed by learned CIT(A) as ex-parte in violation of the principles of natural justice. Prayed to set aside the impugned order. 7. Learned DR has submitted that assessee was provided sufficient opportunities of hearing by learned CIT(A) on various occasions but for no avail. Learned DR has supported impugned order. 8. We notice that the assessee did not respond to the notices dated 01.09.2023, 21.06.2024, 17.06.2025 and 25.07.2025. The first appellate authority was thus compelled to pass exparte impugned order. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice and fair play, we deem it just and appropriate to afford an opportunity of hearing to the assessee and remit the matter back to the file of learned CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, a fresh. We further direct the assessee to be diligent and cooperative in attending the hearings and making submissions before the learned CIT(A) for the expeditious and effective disposal. Assessee shall refrain from seeking any adjournment but for compelling and unavoidable circumstances. Needless to say that learned CIT(A) shall ensure the observance of the principles of natural justice. It is made clear that we have not made any observation in respect of the merits of the case. The appeal is liable to be allowed for statistical purposes. 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Impugned order dated 12.08.2025 is set aside. Order pronounced in the open court on 20.02.2026 Sd- Sd- (M. BALAGANESH) (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated:20.02.2026