Sunil Kumar vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 34(5), Civic Centre, New Delhi

Per Kavitha Rajagopal, JM:

This appeal is filed by the assessee, challenging the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [‘Ld. CIT(A)’ for short], National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC” for short) passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act'), pertaining to the Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2022-23.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal.

It is observed that the assessee has filed the present appeal with a delay of 85 days beyond the period of limitation for which the assessee has filed an application along with an affidavit for condoning the said delay. On perusal of the same, we deem it fit to condone the delay for the reason that the assessee had ‘sufficient cause’ for the said delay. Delay condoned.

Brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is a resident individual and had filed his return of income for the year under consideration dated 31/07/2022 declaring total income at Rs. 7,96,520/- and the same was processed u/ s 143(1) of the Act. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny through CASS to verify the transaction of Rs. 1,80,00,000/- which was paid by the assessee to Sh. Sanjay Garg for outward foreign remittance alleged to be a bogus transaction. The Ld. A.O. passed the assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w. 144B of the Act dated 15/03/2024 determining total income at Rs. 1,87,96,520/- after making an addition of Rs. 1,80,00,000/- as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act.

Aggrieved, the assessee was in appeal before the first appellate authority who vide an ex-parte order dated 25/07/2025 dismissed the appeal field by the assessee on the ground of non prosecution. The assessee is in appeal before us challenging the impugned order of Ld. CIT(A)

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is observed that pursuant to the search and seizure operation carried on 10/10/2021 in the case of Aditya Kumar Jha alleged to have been engaged in operating various domestic entities for the purpose of foreign outward remittance as the modus operandi was to receive the RTGS entries from Sh. Manoj Kumar Gupta for routing the funds and finally remitting the same to foreign entities which are managed and operated by the said person. The statement of Sh. Manoj Kumar Gupta revealed that Sh. Sanjay Garg was also associated with him to whom the assessee is said to have paid 1,80,00,000/- as outward foreign remittance. The Ld. A.O made an addition on the impugned amount as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act for the reason that the assessee had furnished only a self declaration affidavit which was not signed by any competent authority and having no evidentiary value. Before the first appellate authority the assessee was non-complaint inspite of various notices being issued on different dates.

The Ld. Authorized Representative (in short “Ld. AR)” prayed that the assessee has got a good case on merits and hence be given one more opportunity to present his case before the first appellate authority, for which the Ld. DR vehemently opposed stating that several opportunities were already granted to the assessee which were not availed.

On the above facts of the case, we deem it fit to extend one more opportunity to the assessee to present his case before the first appellate authority by adhering to the principles of natural justice and in the interest of justice dispensation with a direction that the assessee shall comply with the proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A) without any undue delay from his side. The Ld. CIT(A) is directed to adjudicate the issue de-novo on the basis of the submission of the assessee and on considering the documentary evidences, if any, filed. Hence, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are hereby allowed for statistical purpose.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purpose.