Mohini vs Income Tax Officer

Per Raj Kumar Chauhan, Judicial Member:

The appeal of the asse ssee is d irected against the order dated 28.07.2025 of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC , Delhi passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) wherein the assessment w as completed by the Assessing Officer u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act vide order dated 24.02.2023.

There is a delay of 113 days in filing the prese nt appeal. Having considered the explanation furnished by the assessee and respectfully following the jud gment of the Hon'ble Supreme Cour t in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), the delay is condoned in the larger interest of substantial justice.

We have heard the ld. AR and the ld. DR. The ld. AR at the very outset sub mitted that imp ugned order has been passed without giving sufficient opportunity to the assessee/appellant by the ld. CIT(A). It is further argued that the ld. CIT( A) has wrongly dismissed the appeal by rejecting the additional evidence on the ground that the Assessing Officer has given ample opportunity to the assessee for filing necessary docume nt/evidence but the assessee has miserably failed to avail the said opportunity. It is submitted that assessment order has been passed u/s 144 of the Act on the ground that statutory notice u/s 142(1) were issued on various date s as find mentioned in para 2 of the assessment order but despite of statutory no tice as we ll as show -cause notice were served to the assessee on his registered e-mail, the assessee remained non-responsive and non-compliant. In that regard, it is submitted that there is no material or evidence placed on record which would sho w that the statutory no tice including show-cause notice were ever served or received by the assessee. It is further submitted that in the absence of sufficient proof w ith regard to service/receiving of the statutory notice by the assessee , the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A) while uphold ing the ex-parte assessment order has resulted into miscarriage of justice. It is fur ther submitted that the additional evidence brought before the ld. CIT(A) has been rejected without seeking any re mand report fro m the AO and without considering the sufficient cause having been made out by the assessee by exercising Rule 46 A of the Income Tax Rule s, 1962. Despite that the assessee has fulfilled all the requirement of said r ule. It is therefore prayed that matter be restored to the file of ld. CIT(A) for deciding afresh on merit after granting adequate opportunity of being heard.

The ld. DR, on the o ther hand, while supporting the judgme nt of lower authorities has left it to the discretion o f the Tribunal to consider the submissions for restoring the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A).

We have heard the r ival submissio ns and perused the material availab le on record. The assessee is agg rieved by the order of the ld. C IT(A) confirming the addition of Rs.59,04,650/- towards cash dep osits and Rs.32,073/- towards cash w ithdraw als u/s 69A of the Income- tax Act, 1961. During the appellate proceedings, the assessee furnished the partnership deed, bank statement and purchase details and contended that the impugned transactions actually pertained to the partnership firm, M/ s Cold & Spicy, in which she was a partner. We find that the aforesaid documents are relevant for determining the nature and source of the impugned cash transactions. Ho wever, the same require proper verification from the records of the partnership fir m. The ld. CIT(A) has not obtained any remand report from the Assessing Officer in this regard. We have noticed that the Assessing Officer has proceeded u/s 1 44 of the Act for passing a best judgment assessment on the ground that the statutory notice sent to the assessee were duly served on the registered e-mail and assessee has no t filed any respo nse. As already discussed by us, the Revenue has not p laced on record any proof to show that the said statutory notice were ever received or served on the registered e-mail of the assessee. In the ab sence of any search material having not been produced before us, we set aside the imp ugned assessment order as well as impugned order having been passed w itho ut giving effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee. In the interest of justice , we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The ld. CIT(A) shall examine the additional evidence in accordance with law, call for a remand report fro m the Assessing Officer, and thereafter decide the issue afresh on merits after provid ing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee/appellant is also directed to make the necessary submissions/ detailed material before the Ld. CIT(A) within the period of 60 days of this order.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.