DCIT vs Satya Parkash Shokeen

PER RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN (J.M.):

The appeal is directed against the order dated 10.10.2025 passed by Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), 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”] wherein the assessment order dated 28.06.2021 was upheld and the addition made u/s 69C and 69A on account of unexplained expenditure and unexplained money along with disallowance of deduction u/s VI-A of the Act were confirmed.

The facts in brief as culled out from the order of the authorities below are that the respondent/assessee filed its return on 29.03.2012 for A.Y. 2011-12 declaring income of Rs. 3,95,459/-. Search and seizure operation was conducted on Sanjay Bhandari Group of cases under section 132 of the Act on 19.01.2019. A warrant of authorization for search was issued in the name of Sh. Satya Prakash Shokeen for his residence and business premises from where certain papers/documents were found and seized. A notice u/s 153A of the Act was issued on 1^st February, 2021 asking the assessee to furnish return of income for the year under consideration being one of the ten assessment years preceding to the assessment year in which search was conducted. The statutory notices u/s 142(1) dated 19.02.2021 along with questionnaire was issued for 26 Feb. 2021. On 08.03.2021, the assessee filed return of income declaring same income of Rs. 3,95,459/- in response to notice u/s 153A of the act and accordingly notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on 13.03.2021 but no response has been furnished by the assessee. Despite given adequate opportunity, the assessee has not filed any explanation in respect of incriminating documents found and seized during the search proceeding. Since the assessment was getting barred by limitation on 30.06.2021, the assessment proceeding has been conducted ex parte u/s 144 r.w.s. 153A of the Act. Resulting into addition of Rs. 153 lacs u/s 69C and 25 crore u/s 69A along with disallowance of deduction under chapter VI-A of the Act of Rs. 18,000/-and the total income was assessed at Rs. 26,57,13,460/-.

Aggrieved by the impugned order, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. PCIT, Delhi who has dismissed the same and confirmed the addition.

Aggrieved by the impugned order, the assessee has filed appeal before us raising various grounds.

We have heard the Ld. DR for the Revenue and examined material available on record. No one was appeared on behalf of the assessee during the hearing before the Tribunal. We have noticed that impugned order is ex parte and the assessment order is also ex parte. And thus shows that the effective opportunity of hearing has not been given to the assessee.

Ld. DR on the other hand stated that 14 opportunity were granted by the Ld. CIT(A) and the assessee has failed to appear or file response and as such suffered the dismissal of the appeal because of non-negligence and as such the assessee should not be awarded for his negligence and the appeal should be dismissed.

We have considered the rival submission and examined the material available on record.

Section 250 sub section 2(a) of "the Act" provides as under:

It is thus evident from the provision that the opportunity at the time of hearing of the appeal is not a mere formality but a mandatory requirement of the statute. It is further argued that in para no. 7 of the impugned order, it is simply stated that 7 notices were issued on various dates mentioned therein but there is no proof of service of the said notices upon the assessee. It shows that the impugned order has been passed without giving an effective opportunity of hearing, and the same deserves to be set aside and the matter need to be restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for deciding the same afresh.

We have considered the submissions and examined the record. We do not find force in the arguments advanced on behalf of the Revenue because Ld. CIT(A)’s order in para no. 7 simply states that several notices were issued on various dates as mentioned therein but nothing is mentioned that the said notices were ever served or received by the assessee. Section 250 sub section 2(a) of the Act lays down a mandatory requirement of providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee or his representative at the time of consideration of the appeal by the ld. CIT(A).

In view of these facts, we are of the considered opinion that the effective opportunity of hearing has not been granted and, for that reason, the impugned order is set aside by remitting the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the same afresh after providing effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee/ appellant. The appellant/assessee is directed to present its case within the period of 60 days from this order without any fail on their part.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed as above terms for statistical purposes.