INDER MALHOTRA,AGRA V. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(1)(1), AGRA, AGRA

ITA 244/AGR/2025

AI Insights

The case involves three appeals by the assessee, Inder Malhotra, against the orders of the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi, for the assessment years 2014-15, 2015-16, and 2016-17. The appeals were consolidated due to the similarity of facts across the years. The primary issue arose from the assessee's failure to respond adequately to notices regarding unexplained deposits in his bank account, leading to additions under section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeals ex parte due to the assessee's non-participation, despite multiple opportunities given. The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) did not provide a reasoned decision as required under section 250(6) of the Act, leading to the remittance of the case for a fresh hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 772040 (ITAT-AGRA)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASSESSEE; REVENUE; SUKESH KUMAR JAIN
• Assessee Lawyers: S. NITIN GOYAL; AMIT GOYAL; ADVOCATES
• Keywords: Set aside; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 147; 148; 142(1)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 243, 244 & 245/Agr/2025 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Inder Malhotra, 10/163A, I-3, Rajshree Cinema, Bagh Muzaffar Khan, Agra. Vs. Income-tax Officer, Ward 1(1)(1), Agra. PAN : ABIPM2686H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by S/Sh. Nitin Goyal & Amit Goyal, Advocates Department by Sh. Sukesh Kumar Jain, CIT(DR) Date of hearing 20.08.2025 Date of pronouncement 29.08.2025 ORDER PER : SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: All these three appeals have been preferred by assessee against separate impugned orders all dated 28.02.2025 passed in first appeal No. NFAC/2013-14/10274599, NFAC/2014-15/10274612 and NFAC/2015-16/10274638 for the assessment years 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 respectively, by Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) wherein Ld. CIT(Appeals) has dismissed assessee’s first appeals ex parte. Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.243, 244 & 245/Agr/2025 2 | P a g e 2. The facts in all the three appeals are almost similar. Hence, for the sake of brevity and convenience, these appeals are being decided by the common order. The facts of ITA No. 243/Agr/2025 for the assessment year 2014-15 are only being narrated as under : 3. The appellant assessee filed return of income for A.Y. 2014-15 on 31.03.2015, declaring total income of Rs.15,69,350/-. On the basis of information available with the department, it was noticed that the appellant assessee deposited cash to the tune of Rs.5,91,19,575/- in his bank account No. 0273010100002760 in J & K Bank. The case was reopened u/s. 147 and notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued. Assessee did not file the return of income in response thereof. Assessee did not respond to the notice issued u/s. 142(1) of the Act. However, assessee submitted reply dated 08.05.2023 in response to the show cause notice dated 20.04.2023. Assessing Officer, not being satisfied with assessee’s response, added Rs.8,58,87,265/- as unexplained deposits/credits u/s. 69A of the Act. 4. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before ld. CIT(Appeals), who dismissed assessee’s first appeal ex parte. 5. Assessee has filed the second appeal on the various grounds, one of which is that he could not participate and defend his case in the appellate proceedings on account of unavoidable reasons, praying to Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.243, 244 & 245/Agr/2025 3 | P a g e afford one more opportunity to present his case before the revenue authorities on merit. 6. Perused the records. Heard Ld. representative for assessee and Ld. DR for revenue. 7. Learned representative for assessee has submitted that the impugned order has been passed ex parte, as the assessee could not participate in the first appellate proceedings due to unavoidable reasons, hence, be afforded an opportunity of hearing before the first appellate authority. 8. Learned DR has pointed out that as many as on seven occasions, assessee was afforded opportunities to defend his case during the first appellate proceedings, yet he chose to remain away from participating in the proceedings. Ld. DR has supported the impugned order. 9. It transpires from the perusal of the impugned order that the assessee did not file any submission in response to various notices issued by the first appellate authority on 19.06.2024, 28.06.2024, 22.07.2024, 06.08.2024, 19.09.2024 and 13.02.2025. Such an irresponsive and reluctant attitude of the assessee has compelled the first appellate authority to pass impugned order ex parte. It is, however, noticed that learned CIT(Appeals) passed ex-parte impugned order without any substantial discussion on the merits of the case, whereas Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.243, 244 & 245/Agr/2025 4 | P a g e learned CIT(Appeals) was expected to state the points for determination, decision thereon and the reasons for the decision as provided u/s. 250(6) of the Act, more particularly when the appellant assessee had raised 11 grounds in Form-35 before ld. CIT(Appeals). 10. It is well settled principle that the ‘reason’ is the life of law. It is that filament that injects soul to the order. Absence of analysis, not only evinces non-application of mind but also mummifies the core spirit of the order. Keeping the well settled principle that no litigant should be condemned unheard in view, we deem it just and appropriate to remit the matter back to the file of learned CIT(A) for adjudication afresh on merits after affording opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The ld. CIT(Appeals) is directed to pass speaking and reasoned order. We direct the assessee to be cooperative in attending the hearings and making submissions before the learned CIT(A) for the expeditious and effective disposal. 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, thus, liable to be allowed for statistical purposes. 11. Since, the issues involved in ITA Nos. 244 & 245/Agr/2025 for A.Y. 2015-16 and 2016-17 are identical to one involved in ITA No. 243/Agr/2025(A.Y. 2014-15, our finding in ITA No. 243/Agr/2025 (A.Y. Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.243, 244 & 245/Agr/2025 5 | P a g e 2014-15) shall mutatis mutandis apply in these two appeals too. Accordingly, both these appeals are also liable to be allowed for statistical purposes. 12. In the result, ITA No. 243, 244 & 245/Agr/2025 are allowed for statistical purposes. The impugned orders all dated 28.02.2025 are set aside. Order pronounced in the open court on 29.08.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (M. BALAGANESH) (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 29.08.2025 *aks/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Agra Printed from counselvise.com "