HARDIK NAGJIBHAI DHAMELIYA,SURAT V. ITO, WARD3(2)(1), SURAT

ITA 431/SRT/2024

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Hardik Nagjibhai Dhameliya against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, which confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer as unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act for the Assessment Year 2020-21. The initial appeal was dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) due to the non-appearance of the assessee despite several notices. The assessee's counsel admitted the non-appearance was due to a mistake on their part and requested a de-novo hearing. The Tribunal, considering the circumstances and the quantum of additions involved, decided to restore the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh hearing, imposing a cost on the assessee for the procedural lapse.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 24814 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2020-2021
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MUKESH JAIN
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJ SHAH
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Unexplained investment
• Section: 69

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 431/SRT/2024 (Assessment Year: 2020-21) Hardik Nagjibhai Dhameliya, 3/4, Royal Park Society, Karada Road, Katagram, Surat-395004 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(1), Surat [PAN No.AYRPD2395L] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Raj Shah, C.A. Respondent by: Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 24.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement 25.03.2025 O R D E R PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL - JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”), National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short “NFAC”), Delhi vide order dated 08.03.2024 passed for A.Y. 2020-21. 2. The brief facts of the case are that during the course of assessment, certain additions were made by the Assessing Officer as unexplained investment in the hands of the assessee under Section 69 of the Act. In appeal, Ld. CIT(A) noted that in spite of issuance of several notices of hearing, the assessee did not cause appearance and accordingly, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed on account of non-appearance. ITA No.431/Srt/2024 Hardik Nagjibhai Dhameliya vs. ITO Asst.Year –2020-21 - 2– 3. The assessee is in appeal before us against the aforesaid order passed by Ld. CIT(A) confirming the additions made by the Ld. CIT(A). 4. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has a good case on merits and if given an opportunity of being heard, the assessee would be able demonstrate that the additions made in the hands of the assessee are liable to be deleted. The Counsel for the assessee admitted that it was due to mistake of the Counsel of the assessee that he could not cause appearance. Accordingly, the Counsel for the assesse submitted that the matter may be restored to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for de- novo consideration, in the interest of justice. 5. On going through the facts of the instant case, we observe that the assessee had filed certain details before the Assessing Officer in support of his case. However, the assessee did not cause appearance before Ld. CIT(A) despite issuance of several notices of hearing. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee filed an Affidavit that stating that it was due to lack of information received by the assessee from his consultant that the appeal of the assessee was dismissed on ex-parte basis vide order dated 08.03.2024. Looking into the instant facts in the interest of justice, the matter is hereby restored to the of Ld. CIT(A) for de-novo consideration after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The appeal is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) also keeping into consideration the quantum of additions involved in the instant case. ITA No.431/Srt/2024 Hardik Nagjibhai Dhameliya vs. ITO Asst.Year –2020-21 - 3– 6. The Ld. D.R. also did not object to the matter being restored to the file of Ld. CIT(A) in the interest of justice. 7. In the result, the matter is hereby restored to the file of Ld. CIT(A) with a direction that in case there is further non-compliance on the part of the assessee, then Ld. CIT(A) would be at liberty to pass appropriate orders on the basis of materials available on record in accordance with law. Since, the Counsel for the assessee has not given any sound and cogent reasons for non-appearance before the Tax Authorities, the assessee is directed to pay a cost Rs. 5,000/- to be paid to the Prime Minister Relief Fund for getting the matter restored to the file of Ld. CIT(A). 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced under proviso to Rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 on 25/03/2025 Sd/- Sd/- (BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH) (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 25/03/2025 TANMAY, Sr. PS TRUE COPY आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथŎ / The Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयुƅ / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयुƅ(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, सूरत / DR, ITAT, Surat 6. गाडŊ फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, सूरत/ ITAT, Surat "