SULEMAN ,SAHARANPUR V. ITO,WARD-3(3)(5), SAHARANPUR

ITA 3775/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Suleman, the proprietor of M/s Habib Traders, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre - Delhi, which dismissed his appeal for non-prosecution regarding an assessment order that added Rs. 2,32,27,690 as unexplained money under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the appeal on its merits but dismissed it due to the Assessee's non-appearance. The Tribunal decided to remand the case back to the CIT(A) for a substantive decision, emphasizing the need to adhere to principles of natural justice.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 474874 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 147; 69A; 20

Judgement Text

" 1 ITA No. 3775/Del/2024 Suleman Vs. ITO IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI (DELHI BENCH ‘G’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 3775/DEL/2024 (A.Y. 2018-19) Suleman M/s Habib Traders Lohani Sarai Saharanpur Uttar Pradesh PAN: BHKPS3652N Vs. ITO Ward- 3(3)(5) Saharanpur Uttar Pradesh Appellant Respondent Assessee by None Revenue by Sh. Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 27/02/2025 Date of Pronouncement 27/02/2025 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM: The present appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)/National Faceless Appeal Centre- Delhi [‘NFAC)’ for short] dated 31/05/2024 for Assessment Year 2018- 19. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, the Department of Revenue received an information that certain cash depositshave been made by the Assessee in his bank account, accordingly, a Show Cause Notice has been issued and assessment proceedings havebeen initiated. An 2 ITA No. 3775/Del/2024 Suleman Vs. ITO assessment order came to be passed on 09/03/2023 u/s 147 r.w. Section 144& 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (‘Act’ for short) by making an addition of Rs. 2,32,27,690/- by treating the cash depositedmade by the Assessee as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 28/09/2023, the Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 31/05/2024, dismissed the Appeal filed by the Assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 31/05/2024, the Assessee preferred the present Appeal. 3. None appeared for the Assessee. 4. There is a delay of 20 days in filing the presentAppeal and the Assessee has filed an affidavit narrating the cause for condonation of delay. For the reason stated in the affidavit for the delay, the delayof 20 days in filing the present Appeal is hereby condoned. 5. The main grievance of the Assessee in the presentAppeal is that the impugned order has been passed without providing opportunity of being heard which is against to the principals of natural justice. 3 ITA No. 3775/Del/2024 Suleman Vs. ITO 6. The Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently submitted that the Assessee is a non-filer has not complied with the notices issued by the A.O. and not even bother to appear and participate in the assessment proceedings as well as before the Ld. CIT(A). Further submitted that even before this Tribunal the Assessee has not appeared, therefore, sought for dismissal of the Appeal. 7. Heard the Ld. Ld. Departmental Representative andperused the material available on record. It is found that the Assessee has not complied any of the notices issued by the A.O. and remained absent during the assessment proceedings, during the first appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A) and also before this Tribunal. On verifying the order of the Ld. CIT(A), it is found that the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the Appeal for non-prosecution, however, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the Appeal on its merit. Considering the fact that the Ld. CIT(A) has not decided the Appeal on its merit, we remand the issue involved in the present Appeal to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to decide the Appeal on its merit. Further we clarify that the Ld. CIT(A) shall provide an opportunity of being heard to the Assessee and if the Assessee remains absent, the Ld. CIT(A) is at liberty to decide the Appeal on its merit in accordance with law. 4 ITA No. 3775/Del/2024 Suleman Vs. ITO 8. In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 27th February, 2025 Sd/- Sd/- (BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Date:-27 .02.2025 R.N, Sr.P.S* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI "