Anil Madan vs ACIT/DCIT

Per Raj Kumar Chauhan, Judicial Member:

These twin appeals of the assessee are directed against the order dated 20.06.2025 of ld. CIT( A)-27, New Delhi u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) wherein addition/disallowance made vide assessment order dated 22.0 9.2024 u/s 143(3) of the Act were confirmed and appeal was dismissed.

By this commo n order, we propose to decide the ITA Nos. 4895 & 4896/Del/2025 as the parties are same and factual matrix is also same and in order to avoid the multiplicity of decisio n, the same are being disposed off accordingly. ITA No. 4895/Del/2025 is taken as “lead” case for the purpose of factual matrix.

Facts in brief are that the assessee is an individ ual filed return of inco me on 29.10.2022 declaring to tal income of Rs.48,24,630/-. The Assessing Officer mad e addition of Rs.3 ,13,000/- re garding cash deposits by the asse ssee. Further additio n of Rs.63,36,357/- was made o n account of failure to explain the nature and source of credits in the bank account of the assessee. The third addition of Rs.50 ,000/- was made as assessee has not furnished any proof of deductio n u/s 80D of the Act.

Aggrieved by the said addition in assessment or der, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who has dismissed the same ex-parte on the ground that the assessee has failed to file any response despite var ious no tices issued.

Aggrieved by the impug ned order, the assesse e is in appeal before the Tribunal.

We have heard the ld. AR and the ld. DR. The ld. AR at the very outset submitted that the impugned order has resulted into miscarriage of justice because the ld. CIT( A) has decided the appeal w itho ut giving effective opportunity of hearing . It is further submitted that the no tices allegedly issued were never received or served upon the assessee and has prayed for restoring the matter to the file of the AO for decid ing the same afresh. The ld. DR o n the other hand, while supporting the order of the lowe r authorities has left it to the discretion of the Tribunal to consider the submissions for remitting the file to the ld. CIT(A) for fresh decision.

We have considered the rival submissions and e xamined the record. In order to appreciate the arguments o f the ld . AR, the para 4, 4.1 and 4.2 of the impugned order are relevant and extracted below as under:

Section 250(2)(a) lays down as under:

Thus, the hear ing mandated by Section 250(2)(a) of the Act is no t a mere formality but a mandatory statutory requirement for following the principle of natur al justice by the quasi-judicial authority.

In view of the ab ove facts and circumstances, it is evident that the impugned order has been passed w ithout effective hearing and principle of natural justice has no t b een followed For these reaso ns, the impug ned order is not maintainable and according ly set aside. T he end of justice shall be met in case the matter is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the issue afresh by affording an effective o pportunity of hearing and considering the submissions to be made by the appellant/assessee. The assessee/appellant is also directed to make the necessary submissions/ detailed material before the Ld. CIT(A) w ithin the period of 60 days of this order.

Since, the factual matrix and the decision of the ld. C IT( A) is identical and similar in this appeal vis-à-vis ITA No. 4895/Del/2025, hence, the findings of the Tribunal in ITA No. 4895/Del/2025 shall apply mutatis mutandis in ITA No.4896/Del/2025 for A.Y. 2023-24 also.

In the result, these tw in appeals ITA No. 4895 & 4896/Del/2025 of the asse ssee are allowed for statistical purposes.