SAMI ULLAH KHAN,BHOPAL V. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(2), BHOPAL

ITA 918/IND/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Sami Ullah Khan, the appellant, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi, which upheld an ex-parte assessment order passed by the AO. The AO had made an addition of Rs. 26,59,000 to the assessee's income on account of unexplained deposits in a bank account, citing non-representation by the assessee. The CIT(A) upheld this addition due to lack of authentic documentary evidence from the assessee. The appellant's representative argued that the bank account in question was already accounted for in the audited books of the assessee. Both parties agreed to remand the matter back to the AO for a fresh assessment, emphasizing the need for adherence to the principles of natural justice.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 668624 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: FORASSESSEESUBMITSTHATTHEAOHASPASSEDEXPARTE; FORREVENUEAGREESWITHTHEPRAYEROFLD.ARBUTMAKESA; SHRIASHISHPORWAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SHRIN.D.PATWA
• Keywords: Corroborative evidences; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 147; 144

Judgement Text

"Page 1 of 3 आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, इंदौरɊायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.918/Ind/2024 Assessment Year: Sami Ullah Khan, 110, Basement Cynamic Centre, Zone-I, M.P. Nagar Bhopal बनाम/ Vs. ITO 1(2) Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) PAN: AKUPK5262A Assessee by Shri N.D. Patwa, AR Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 23.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement 24.06.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by order of first-appeal dated 18.12.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 23.11.2019 passed by learned ITO-1(2), Bhopal [“AO”] u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2012-13, the assessee has filed this appeal on the grounds mentioned in Appeal Memo (Form No. 36). Sami Ullah Khan ITA No. 918/Ind/2024 - AY 2012-13 Page 2 of 3 2. Ld. AR for assessee submits that the AO has passed ex-parte assessment-order u/s 144 wherein he has made an addition of Rs. 26,59,000/- on account of unexplained deposit in Standard Chartered Bank for the reason of non-representation by assessee. Further, the CIT(A) has, vide Para No. 5.2 of impugned order, upheld the addition made by assigning the reason that the assessee has not provided authentic documentary evidences. Ld. AR submits that the assessee is engaged in the business of civil contractorship and its accounts for the year under consideration were duly audited and audited accounts were filed to department alongwith return filed u/s 139(1) on 29.09.2012, copies are placed in Paper-Book at Pages 1-16. Ld. AR further submits that the statement of impugned a/c with Standard Chartered Bank for which the AO has made addition, is also filed in Paper-Book at Pages 18-25 and this bank a/c is already accounted book in audited books of assessee. He submits that the case of assessee is meritorious and no addition is warranted. Ld. AR submits that the assessee is ready and willing to make a proper representation before lower-authorities with all supporting evidences, if an opportunity is given and hence prays that the present matter should be remanded to AO for adjudication afresh. 3. Ld. DR for revenue agrees with the prayer of Ld. AR but makes a request to direct the assessee to represent his case before AO and do not seek unnecessary adjournments. 4. Considering above submissions of parties; having regard to the principle of natural justice and also bearing in mind that no prejudice would Sami Ullah Khan ITA No. 918/Ind/2024 - AY 2012-13 Page 3 of 3 be caused to revenue if the present matter is restored at the level of AO, we remand this matter back to the file of AO for adjudication afresh, at the risk and responsibility of assessee. The AO shall give necessary opportunity of hearing to assessee and pass an appropriate order uninfluenced by his earlier order. The assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and ensure participation in the hearings as may be fixed by AO and do not seek unnecessary adjournments failing which the AO shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly. 5. Resultantly, this appeal is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in open court on 24/06/2025 Sd/- Sd/- (PARESH M. JOSHI) (B.M. BIYANI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Indore िदनांक/Dated : 24/06/2025 Patel/Sr. PS Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order UE COPYSr. Private Secretary Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench, Indore "