AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORDER
Per Raj Kumar Chauhan, Judicial Member:
The appeal is directed against the order dated 29.10.2025 of ld. CIT(A)/ NFAC, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafte r referred to as “the Act”) wherein the additio n made u/s 69A of the Act, vide asse ssment order dated 01.03.2024 was confir med.
Delay of 28 days in filing of the instant appeal is condoned in the larger interest of justice in lig ht of Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).
The facts of the case are that the assessee had not filed the return of income for the assessme nt year 2019-20. During the course of verification, the department no ticed that the assessee had received an amount of Rs. 2 ,00,00,000/- from Shri De shraj and had made fixed deposits amounting to Rs. 1,30,00 ,000/- in the bank account. Fur ther, an amount of Rs. 27.50 lakh was transferred to Mohit Bhai. It w as also noticed from the TDS statement that the assessee had earned interest income of Rs.2,55,040/- from Punjab National Bank and had made time deposits of Rs. 1,07,7 0,454/- in P NB. The assessee had also shown Long Term Capital Gain of Rs. 25,000/- arising from sale of a plot for Rs. 15 ,0 0,000/-, which was originally purchased in the year 1983 for Rs. 5,00 ,000/-. Accordingly, the case was reopened u/s 147 of the Act and notice u/s 148 along with other statutory no tices w ere issued by the Assessing Officer calling for documentary evidences and explanations. Thereafter , the Assessing Officer comple ted the assessment determining the total income at Rs. 2,12 ,76,0 60/- and also initiated penalty proceedings. Ag grieved from the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the learned CIT(A). However, during the appellate proceedings, despite several opportunities and notices issue d under section 250 of the Income T ax Act, the assessee neither filed writte n submissio ns nor furnished do cumentary evide nces in support of the claims made. Since the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the same ex-parte on the ground that the appellant has failed to respond to the various notices sent as find mentioned in para 6 of the impugned order.
Aggrieved by the impugned appellate ex-parte order, the assesse is in ap peal before us and has raised the fo llowing grounds of appeal:
“1 . That on t he facts a nd circ umstances of the c as e, t he ld. C IT(A) has erred i n confirming t he additi on made by the Ld. A.O of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- as unexplaine d mo ney under section 69A of t he Incom e Ta x Act.
2 That on the facts and circ umst anc es o f t he case, the L d. CIT (A ) ha s erre d i n confirming the additi on m ade by the Ld. A.O of Rs. 10,00,000/- pertai ni ng to lo ng term capital gai n on the plot of land.
3 That on the facts and circ umst anc es o f t he case, the Ld. CIT (A) has er red i n passing an ex-pa rte order without considering t he reply of the appellant on meri ts of the case and e ven not appr eciati ng that i n this ca se, there was no delibera te at tempt on the par t of t he appellate to, not to, reply t o t he notices of heari ng.
4.That on the facts and circumstances of t he c as e t he Ld. C IT (A ) has erre d i n law in i nitiati ng penalty proc eedi ngs under sec tion 270A, 271AAC agai nst t he assessee.
5.That the appellant craves leave of addi ng, modifying a ny other grounds of appeal, at the time of heari ng.”
We have heard the lear ned AR and the learned DR. The Ld. AR would submit that the impugned order has resulted into miscarriage of justice as principle of natural justice has no t been fo llowed because no effective opportunity of hearing was given as the assessee had never received the notice after 16.10.2025 when ad journment was sought and therefore the matter may be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding afresh. Learned DR on the other hand while supporting the judgment of the learned CIT(A) has left to the discretion of the court to consider the submissions of the assessee as per law.
We have co nsidered the rival submission and examined the record, Section 250(2)(a) lays down as under:
“250(2 ) The fol lo wing shall have the right to be heard at the heari ng o f the appeal-
(a)the appellant, either i n person or by an authori zed repres entative;”
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. Since Assessme nt order is also ex-parte, hence the end of justice shall be met in case the matter is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for deciding the issue afresh by afford ing an effective opportunity of hearing and considering the sub missions to be made by the appellant/assessee. The assessee/appellant is also directed to make the necessary submissions/ detailed material before the Assessing Officer within the period of 60 days of this order.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.