AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER AMITABH SHUKLA, AM,
This appeal filed by the assessee is against order dated 28.10.2025 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-27 New Delhi, [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT(A)] arising out of assessment order dated 13.03.2024 passed u/s 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 pertaining to Assessment Year 2020-21. The word ‘Act’ herein this order would mean Income Tax Act, 1961.
At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee contested the order of ld. CIT(A) confirming the addition of Rs.22,96,800/- on account of unexplained jewellery, on the premise that the same is in violation of CBDT Instructions on the issue of seizure of jewellery.
The ld. DR, Shri Mahesh Kumar, vehemently argued that the assessee had not complied with the statutory notices issued by the appellate authority compelling him to pass an ex-parte order and therefore the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
We have heard rival submission in the light of material placed on record. On the issue of non-compliance, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that it was not provided adequate opportunity by the ld. First Appellate Authority to file written submissions and that the non-compliance was not intentional. We have noted that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s appeal for non-compliance. We are conscious that no litigant benefits by non-prosecution of its case. In the interest of justice, we therefore set-aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to him for adjudication de novo, in accordance with law and after giving due opportunity of being heard. The assessee shall comply with all the statutory notices and the Revenue shall be at liberty to draw adverse conclusions in the event of non-compliance by the assessee.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.