Savita Chaturvedi (Ind) vs Ito, Ward 59(6)

PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal by the assessee is directed against an ex-parte order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 31.12.2025, for Assessment Year 2019-20.

The appeal is time barred by 9 days. The assessee has filed an application citing reasons causing delay in filing of appeal. After perusal of the same, I am satisfied that delay in filing of appeal is not intentional, the delay has been caused for the reasons stated in application which appears to be bonafide. Thus, delay of 9 days in filing of appeal is condoned and appeal is admitted for decision on merits.

Shri Rajesh Kumar Singh, appearing on behalf of the assessee submits that the Assessing Officer (AO) has made addition of Rs.25,29,400/- u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) alleging unexplained investment. The assessee had purchased a residential flat in Omaxe Residency-II, Phase-3, Lucknow. On the basis of search in the case of Omaxe, the assessment for A.Y. 2019-20 in the case of the assessee was reopened. It is alleged that the assessee had paid Rs.25,29,400/- in cash in addition to the amount paid through banking channel. The assessee has denied payment of any cash component for purchase of the residential flat to Omaxe. However, the AO disregarded the submissions of the assessee and the documentary evidence furnished by the assessee and made addition of the aforesaid amount. Against the assessment order dated 13.03.2024 passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) in ex-parte proceedings confirmed the addition. The ld. Counsel submits that the alleged notices issued by the CIT(A) were never served on the assessee on the email address provided in Form No. 35. He submitted that the impugned order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. Hence, he prayed for quashing the same

The ld. Counsel further pointed that the assessee has raised an additional ground of appeal challenging validity of the assessment order passed u/s 147 of the Act. He referred to the application under Rule 11 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 dated 12.05.2026 vide which the additional ground of appeal is raised by the assessee.

Per contra, Shri Manoj Kumar, representing the Department supporting the impugned order, submitted that multiple notices were issued by the CIT(A), but the assessee chose not to respond to any of the notices. He thus prayed for upholding the impugned order and dismissing appeal of the assessee.

Both sides heard, orders of the authorities below examined. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the same has been passed in ex-parte proceedings confirming the addition made by the AO. Considering the entire facts of the case, I deem it appropriate to restore the appeal back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication after affording reasonable opportunity of making submissions to the assessee, in accordance with law. Liberty is granted to the assessee to raise all legal pleas, including the additional ground, before the First Appellate Authority.

The CIT(A) shall issue notice(s) to the assessee on the email address provided in Form No.35. The assessee upon service of notice shall respond to the same, without fail.

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.