SHRI MUSHTAQ AHMAD GANAIE,BARAMULA V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, SRINAGAR

ITA 395/ASR/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Sh. Mushtaq Ahmad Ganaie, the proprietor of Fairdeal Traders, who appealed against the order of the CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi, which was based on the order of the AO, Ward-Baramulla. The primary issue was the exparte assessment completed due to the assessee's non-compliance with notices and non-filing of regular returns, resulting in a total income assessment that included unexplained cash deposits during the demonetisation period. The first appellate authority dismissed the appeal without adjudication on merits, leading to the current appeal. The tribunal noted procedural lapses in the service of notice and the assessee's medical condition, which prevented him from participating in the initial appellate proceedings.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 847173 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-03-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Amritsar
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 05-07-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: CHARAN DASS
• Assessee Lawyers: MOHD. IQBAL UNTOO
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 395/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sh. Mushtaq Ahmad Ganaie Prop. Fairdeal Traders, Sopore S.O. Sadiq Colony, Baramulla, Jammu & Kashmir. [PAN:-AOLPG6292D] (Appellant) Vs. CIT (Appeals), New Delhi (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Mohd. Iqbal Untoo, CA Respondent by Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 19.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement 25.03.2026 ORDER Per: Udayan Dasgupta, J.M.: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi, passed u/s 250 of the Act, 1961 vide order dated 30.04.2024 which has emanated from the order of AO, Ward-Baramulla, passed u/s 144 of the Act, vide order dated 13.12.2019. Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No. 395/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 2 2. Condonation of delay: It is pointed out by the registry that this appeal is belatedly filed by 6 (six days). The Ld. AR present at the hearing explained that the said appeal memorandum has been despatched vide post from Srinagar on 29th June, 2024, complete in all respects within the stipulated timeframe, but the same has reached the tribunal office on 5th July, because of inadvertent postal delay, and the default not being intentional, may please be condoned. Considering the reasons and minor delay we condone the same an admit the appeal to be heard on merits. 3. Brief facts emerging from records are that the assessee is engaged in business at Baramullah, J & K, and during the year under appeal has made cash deposits (SBN) amounting to Rs. 16.07 lakhs during demonetisation period, apart from total bank credits in J & K Bank maintained by the assessee, amounting to Rs. 1.28 crores, and in absence of any regular return being filed and in absence of any compliance to notices issued u/s 142(1),and no representation during assessment proceedings, the assessment was completed exparte, on a total income of Rs. 25.05 lakhs (including an addition of Rs. 16.07 lakhs u/s 69A being the SBN deposit plus Rs. 8.98 lakhs being the estimated business profits calculated @ 8% on remaining bank credits.) 4. The assessee has taken seven grounds in form 36 but the main grievance is that the Ld. first appellate authority has dismissed the appeal without adjudication Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No. 395/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 3 on merits and without allowing any opportunity of hearing to the assessee and has pointed out in ground no – 3, that the correct address of the assessee ( asper form 35 ) was Sadiq Colony, Sopore, Baramulla, PIN – 193201 but the address to which communication sent was Muhkak Sopore, Baramulla PIN 193001 (which is incorrect PIN), resulting in non-service of notice, and in course of hearing the Ld. AR of the assessee prayed for an opportunity of hearing before the Ld. first appellate authority to explain his case . 5. The Ld. AR also submitted medical documents of the assessee before the tribunal to state that the assessee is a 70 year old , cancer patient , and is undergoing medical treatment and during the first appellate proceedings conducted in the months of January to April 2024, he was under medical procedure in support of which documents has been filed from the department of medical oncology ( Dr B R Ambekkar Institute Rotary Cancer Hospital , AIIMS , New Delhi ) dated 18/04/2024 onwards and also filed medical documents from Department of Nuclear Medicine, AIIMS, New Delhi , dated 23/04/2024, and has prayed that he was prevented by sufficient cause from making a representation before the first appellate authority, and has prayed for an opportunity of hearing. Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No. 395/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 4 6. The Ld. DR relied on the order of the CIT(A) and pointed out that notice in the instant case has been issued and served through the email id stated in form 35 ([e-mail]), as apparent from para – 5 of the appeal order, on at least three different dates but without any compliance. He further submitted that as apparent the email id is that of the counsel of the assessee, and admittedly even if the assessee himself was undergoing medical treatment, it is not known , as to what prevented the counsel CA to file the submissions and documentary evidences in response to the appeal notice, which has been duly served in his given mail id and the CA was fully aware of the ongoing proceedings and dates of hearing, and he prayed for sustaining the appeal order. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and materials on record and considering the case of the appellant being a seventy year old cancer patient, and as requested and prayed by the counsel in the course of hearing , we are of the opinion that justice will be served if the matter is remanded to the Ld CIT ( A ) to allow the assessee one more opportunity to explain his case with supporting documentary evidences and we direct the assessee to file submissions and evidences , explaining his source of bank deposits and to fully cooperate in appellate proceedings. 7.1 Necessary report may be obtained on fresh evidence as per procedure. Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No. 395/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 5 We have not expressed any opinion on merits. 7.2 Notice to be issued in email as per form 35 and also to the correct address of the assessee as contained in the appeal memorandum. 8. In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced on 25.03.2026 under Rule 34(4) of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules 1963. Sd/- Sd/- (KRINWANT SAHAY) (UDAYAN DASGUPTA) Accountant Member Judicial Member AKV Copy of the order forwarded to: (1)The Appellant (2) The Respondent (3) The CIT (4)The DR, I.T.A.T. True Copy By order Printed from counselvise.com "