AIJAZ MOHIUDDIN,HYDERABAD V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 7(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 272/HYD/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Shri Aijas Mohiuddin, an NRI, who was assessed for unexplained deposits in his bank accounts amounting to Rs.1,33,98,246 under section 69A of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer issued notices under section 142(1) but the assessee did not respond due to not receiving the notices, as they were sent to old addresses. The initial assessment was made ex-parte under section 144. The assessee's appeal to the CIT (A) was dismissed due to non-prosecution, as he was hospitalized and unable to respond to notices during the relevant period. The Tribunal found that the assessee's health issues during the notice period justified his non-compliance and remanded the case for a thorough examination of the additional evidence provided.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 714651 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: GVN HARI
• Keywords: Set aside; Additional evidence; Residential status
• Section: 144; 142(1)

Judgement Text

" ITA No 272 of 2025 Aijas Mohiuddin Page 1 of 6 आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ DB-A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-President A N D Shri Manjunatha, G. Accountant Member आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.272/Hyd/2025 (िनधाŊरण वषŊ/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Aijas Mohiuddin Hyderabad PAN:AJBPA3676Q Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 7(1) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधाŊįरती Ȫारा/Assessee by: Shri GVN Hari, Advocate राज̾ व Ȫारा/Revenue by:: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr.AR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 31/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 06/08/2025 आदेश/ORDER Per Vijay Pal Rao, Vice President This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated, 2/12/2024 of the learned CIT (A)-NFAC Delhi, for the A.Y.2017-18. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to the facts and also the law applicable to the facts of the case. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in dismissing the appeal Ex-Parte. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No 272 of 2025 Aijas Mohiuddin Page 2 of 6 3. Without prejudice to the above, The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs.1,33,98,246 made by the assessing officer u/s 69A of the Act towards unexplained deposits in the bank accounts of the appellant. 4. The Appellant craves leave to amend, alter, add or delete any ground of appeal at any time or during the hearing of the appeal.” 3. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee is an NRI and was not having any taxable income in India and therefore, the assessee did not file any return of income for the year under consideration. The Assessing Officer has issued notice u/s 142(1) and then framed the assessment u/s 144 of the Act on 3/12/2019 whereby an addition of Rs.1,33,98,246/- was made u/s 69A of the Act on account of cash deposits and other deposits in the bank account of the assessee. He has pointed out that the notices were issued by the Assessing Officer at the old addresses of the assessee and therefore, the assessee could not receive the notices. Therefore, there was no compliance or response on behalf of the assessee to those notices. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has filed the appeal before the learned CIT (A) but due to the ill health of the assessee who was undergoing the medical treatment and was also admitted in the Hospital during the relevant period, the assessee could not participate in the proceedings before the learned CIT (A) and consequently, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed due to non-filing of submissions/documents/explanations. The learned Counsel for the assessee has referred to the medical report of the assessee as well as the certificate issued by the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No 272 of 2025 Aijas Mohiuddin Page 3 of 6 Hospital to show that during the month of October, 2024, the assessee was hospitalized and was under the treatment and therefore, the assessee could not respond to the notices issued by the learned CIT (A) in the month of October, 2024. He has thus pleaded that the impugned order of the learned CIT (A) may be set aside, and the matter may be remanded to the record of the Assessing Officer to verify and examine the relevant evidence/details which has been filed by the assessee as an additional evidence to explain the source of the deposits and the credits in the bank account of the assessee. The learned Counsel for the assessee has also referred to the petition filed by the assessee for admission of additional evidence and submitted that due to the reasons as explained above, the assessee could not produce the relevant details and evidence to explain the source of these deposits and other credits in the bank account of the assessee. He has pointed out that majority of the credits are only the transaction of transfer from one bank to another bank and assessee has also filed confirmation along with bank account statements. 4. On the other hand, the learned DR has submitted that despite sufficient opportunities given by the Assessing Officer as well as the learned CIT (A), the assessee has not responded to any of the notices issued by the authorities below. Thus, it is manifest that the assessee has shown a very casual approach to the proceedings pending before the Assessing Officer as well as before the learned CIT (A). He has relied upon the impugned order of the learned CIT (A). Printed from counselvise.com ITA No 272 of 2025 Aijas Mohiuddin Page 4 of 6 5. We have considered the rival contentions as well as the relevant material available on record. The assessee has filed the copy of the Passport to show that during the year under consideration, a total duration of stay in India is 165 days and therefore, the residential status of the assessee in India is an NRI. The assessee is working as an Engineer in Saudi Arabia and drawing the income outside India. The assessee has not filed any return of income on the belief that there is no taxable income of the assessee in India. The Assessing Officer on the basis of information of deposits of cash of Rs.12,30,000/- in the bank account of the assessee during the demonetization period issued a notice u/s 142(1) of the Act but there was no response on behalf of the assessee. The assessee has explained that due to change of the address of the assessee, the notices issued by the Assessing Officer were not received and therefore, the assessee was unaware about the proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer finally passed the assessment order u/s 144 of the Act and made the addition of the entire credit in the bank account of the assessee u/s 69A of the Act. The assessee challenged the action of the Assessing Officer before the learned CIT (A), but the appeal of the assessee was dismissed due to non- prosecution on behalf of the assessee. 6. It is apparent from the impugned order of the learned CIT (A) that after issuing the initial notice dated 16/08/2023, the next notice was issued after a gap of more than one year on 03/10/2024 and then on 21/10/2024 and 30/10/2024. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No 272 of 2025 Aijas Mohiuddin Page 5 of 6 Therefore, the last 3 notices were issued in the month of October, 2024 but there was no compliance to these notices by the assessee. The assessee has now filed the medical record of the assessee to show that the assessee was undergoing the treatment and also admitted in the hospital during the said period. The assessee was under complete rest during the months of October & November 2024. Thus, we are satisfied that the assessee could not participate in the proceedings before the learned CIT (A) due to his ill health and undergoing treatment. The assessee has also filed a petition for admission of the additional evidence comprising of sthe details of the amounts credited in the bank account of the assessee including the deposits and source of the cash deposits. The assessee has also filed copy of the bank account statement and confirmation letters from the persons from whose bank accounts certain amounts were transferred. Since the assessment order was passed u/s 144 of the Act and the learned CIT (A) has also dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution, therefore, the additional evidences filed by the assessee remained unverified and unexamined. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, we set aside the impugned order of the learned CIT (A) and remand the matter to the record of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after proper verification and examination of the relevant record filed by the assessee to explain the source of the deposits made in the bank account of the assessee. Needless to say, before passing the fresh order, the assessee be given an appropriate opportunity of hearing. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No 272 of 2025 Aijas Mohiuddin Page 6 of 6 6. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 6th August, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (MANJUNATHA, G.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (VIJAY PAL RAO) VICE-PRESIDENT Hyderabad, dated 6th August, 2025 Vinodan/sps Copy to: S.No Addresses 1 Shri Aijas Mohiuddin, 8-1-299/A/55, Veterinary Colony, Film Nagar, Shaikhpet, Hyderabad 500096 Telangana 2 Income Tax Officer Ward 7(1) Signature Towers, Kondapur,. Opp: Botanical Gardens, Serilingampally Mandal, RR Distt. Hyderabad 500084 3 Pr. CIT – Exemptions Hyderabad 4 DR, ITAT Hyderabad Benches 5 Guard File By Order Printed from counselvise.com "