ADIL,SAHARANPUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(4), DEOBAND

ITA 4832/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the assessee, Shri Adil, against the order of the CIT(A), which dismissed his appeal ex parte for non-prosecution. The assessee had not filed his income tax return for the assessment year 2015-16 despite having purchased immovable property worth Rs.1,02,33,500 and paying stamp duty of Rs. 4,87,500. The AO initiated proceedings under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and made an addition of Rs. 51,16,750 under section 69 of the Act, which was confirmed by the CIT(A). The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without adjudicating on merits and remanded the case back to the AO for a fresh decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 23554 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHISH TRIPATHI
• Assessee Lawyers: ANKIT GUPTA
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 147; 148; 144

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.4832/Del/2024 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16) Shri ADIL, S/o Shir Alamdin, 70, Gujjarwara, Deoband-247554 Distt. Saharanpur. PAN-CTYPA1722Q Vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Ankit Gupta, Advocate Department by Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 18/02/2025 Date of Pronouncement 18/02/2025 O R D E R PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated 14.08.2024 in appeal No. NFAC/2014- 15/10140489 for AY 2015-16. 2. In ground of appeal No.1, assessee has challenged the action of the ld. CIT(A) in dismissing the appeal of the assessee ex parte for non-prosecution without appreciating the material available on record. 2 ITA No.4832/Del/2024 ADIL vs. ITO 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and has never filed his return of income. The AO had information that the assessee has purchased an immovable property for Rs.1,02,33,500/- and paid stamp duty of Rs. 4,87,500/- jointly with his brother, and since no return was filed, proceedings u/s 147 were initiated and notice u/s 148 was issued on 31.3.2021. In compliance to the show cause notice it was explained by the assessee that the immediate source of investment was out of the sale proceeds of agricultural lands sold by the father of the assessee and filed copies of the sale deeds. AO found that the investment was made by the assessee much prior to the sale of lands by the father of the assessee and therefore, he was of the opinion that the assessee has failed to explain the source of investment made in the acquisition of immovable property. Accordingly, he made the addition of Rs. 51,16,750/- u/s 69 of the Act vide order dt. 29.03.2022, passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act. On appeal ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition as there was no compliance before him. Hence, the assessee is in appeal before us. It was submitted by ld. AR that the ld. CIT(A), NFAC has dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The ld. AR submit that the notices were sent by ld. CIT(A) on the registered mail of the assessee however, assessee was not regularly open his mail therefore, the notices sent by the ld. CIT(A) skipped attention. Only when a message relating to disposal of appeal was received, it was come to the knowledge of the assessee that the appeal is decided ex parte. With this the ld. AR requested that if one opportunity is granted to the 3 ITA No.4832/Del/2024 ADIL vs. ITO assessee and if the matter is sent back to the file of AO, the assessee would undertake to cooperate in the set aside proceedings before the AO and will file all the relevant details. 4. On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR opposed the prayer of the ld. AR of the assessee. It was his submission that the assessee is not bothered to cooperate either in the assessment proceedings nor before the ld. CIT(A). 5. We have considered the rival submissions. Though the assessee has not participated in the proceedings before the lower authorities however, when the assessee has filed appeal before the Tribunal, it seems that he is vigilant to represent his case before the Tribunal. A perusal of the impugned order clearly shows that despite giving several opportunities of hearing, the assessee failed to make any submissions or file documentary evidence in support of his claim. Under these circumstances the ld. CIT(A) should have disposed-off the appeal of the assessee by passing a speaking order on merits after considering the material available on record. In the instant case the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal without adjudicating the issues on merits. Considering the fact that the assessee has failed to make any representation before AO as well as before the ld. CIT(A), in order to render substantiate justices, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and set aside the matter back to the file of AO for fresh adjudication after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing. If the assessee fails to represent his case or furnish any documentary evidences, the AO is free to decide the issues on merits in accordance with law. 4 ITA No.4832/Del/2024 ADIL vs. ITO 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 18/2/2025. Sd/- Sd/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) (MANISH AGARWAL) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated:18/02/2025 PK/Sr. Ps Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI "