AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O R D E R
PER RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN (J.M.):
The appeal is preferred by the assessee /appellant against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”], passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] dated 12.11.2025 for the A.Y. 2015-16 wherein the appeal has been dismissed for non-compliance on the part of the assessee/appellant despite opportunities given and the addition made vide assessment order dated 29.12.2017 were confirmed.
This is the second round of litigation before us because the Hon’ble ITAT vide order dated 16.05.2024 in ITA No. 2150/Del/2023 has set aside the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate afresh after affording adequate opportunity of hearing directing the assessee to cooperate in submitting the necessary information for early disposal of the appeal.
We have noticed that during the appellate proceedings notice u/s 250 of the act were issued on various dates as enumerated in para 5.1 of the impugned order extracted as under:
“5.1During the appellate proceedings, notice(s) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were issued on various dates as under:
Date of issue of notice Date of hearing Mode of service Remarks 20.09.2024 07.10.2024 Online No response 15.05.2025 22.05.2025 Online No response 04.06.2025 11.06.2025 Online No response 22.08.2025 29.08.2025 Online No response 06.11.2025 13.11.2025 Online No response In response to the said notice, the appellant has not furnished any written submission or documents.”
Since no response was filed in pursuance of the above notices issued, the ld. CIT(A) has again dismissed the appeal for non-compliance by the assessee.
Aggrieved by the impugned order, the assessee is in appeal before us and raised following grounds:-
“1.That Learned National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, has grossly erred in law as well as on facts in deciding the appeal without providing any opportunity of being heard. Hence, violated principles of natural justice.
2.That Learned Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Ghaziabad (Assessing Officer) has grossly erred in law as well as on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 22,96,500/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of gifts received from close relatives without appreciating the facts.
3.That Learned Assessing Officer has grossly erred in law as well as on facts in confirming addition of Rs. 30,65,000/- made by the Assessing Officer by treating agricultural income as income from other sources.
4.That Learned Assessing Officer has grossly erred in law as well as on facts and in confirming addition of Rs. 13,80,000/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 69 without appreciating the material available on record.
5.That Learned Assessing Officer has grossly erred in law as well as on facts in confirming addition of Rs. 10,76,000/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 56(2)(vii) of the Income tax Act, 1961 without appreciating the fact that fair market price of the impugned land is much lower than its price as per Circle Rate.
6.The appellant craves leave to add, amend or vary from the aforesaid grounds of appeals at or before the time of hearing.”
We have heard the ld. AR on behalf of the Assessee and ld. DR for the Revenue and examined the impugned order. The Ld. AR, at the very outset, submitted that the assessee had not received any of the notices allegedly issued, and therefore, the impugned order has been passed without affording an effective opportunity of hearing. He further submitted that in case the impugned order is not set aside, it would result into miscarriage of justice. It is further submitted that one more opportunity be given to the assessee/appellant to present its case without any failure before the Ld. CIT(A).
Ld. DR on the other hand, while relying the judgment of the Ld. CIT(A), submitted that the assessee in the appeal has miserably failed to comply with the notices issued, and as such, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
We have considered the rival submissions and the material available on record.
Section 250 sub section 2(a) of "the Act" provides as under:
“Section 250 (2) The following shall have the right to be heard at the hearing of the appeal: -
a. The appellant, either in person or by an authorized representative;”
It is evident from the provision that the hearing to be given is not a formality but an effective hearing is sine qua non for the purpose of upholding the principal of natural justice.
On perusal of para 5.1 of the order, we have noticed that it is merely stated that the notices were issued on various dates mentioned therein through the online mode; however, no response was filed. There is nothing on record to show that the said notices allegedly sent through online or through email, have ever served upon the assessee or received by the assessee in due course. In the absence of said material, we are convinced that the effective opportunity of hearing as contemplated under Section 250 sub section 2(a) of the Act was not afforded to the assessee/appellant. For these reasons, the impugned order is accordingly set aside and the matter is remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the same afresh. The assessee is directed to present its case before the Ld. CIT(A) within a period of 60 days from the date of this order.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes for above terms.