Vinod Kumar vs Income Tax Officer

Per Raj Kumar Chauhan, Judicial Member:

The appeal is directed against the order dated 02.12.2025 of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ hereinafter referred to as the “C IT (A)/NFAC”] passed u/s 250 o f the Income T ax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] wherein the appeal of the assesse was dismissed ex-parte and the assessment order dated 29.03.2025 u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 o f the Act was up held and the additio n made was confirmed .

The facts in brief as culled out from the order of the authorities below are that the assessee has filed his return of income declaring total income at Rs.8 ,55,370/- for AY 2016-17 and no assessment /reassessment was made for the said AY. From the CBDT under category High Risk infor mation in case of the assessee, it was no ticed that the assessee has paid cash advance against property to the tune of Rs. 62 ,00,000/- in the concerned year. Accordingly, proceeding u/s 148A were initiated while issuing show cause notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act dated 23.03.2023. In r eply to the said notice, transactions remained unexplained and after taking approval of the Competent Authority and order u/s 148A(d) of the Act was passed on 7^{t h} April, 2023 and notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 7^{t h} Apr il, 2023. In response to the said notice, assessee filed retur n of income. Notice u/s 142(1) was issued on 06.05.2024 and also on other three, four dates but no compliance was made by the assessse to the notice u/s 142(1) of the Act. Final opportunity was given to the assessee by issuing show cause notice u/s 144 of the Act dated 29.03.2025, how ever no response was filed to the show cause notice, he nce proceedings were conducted u/s 144/147 of the Act and best judgment assessment was passed and cash payme nt o f Rs. 62,00,000/- for purchase of property was added u/s 69 of the Act. Other addition of Rs.58,00,000/-was made u/s 68 of the Act on account o f unexplained credit in the bank account of the assessee. T he details of w hich is extracted below as under:

Aggrieved by the impugned order, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. C IT(A) w hich w as dismissed ex-parte because the appellant has failed to respond the notice sent on three dates as mentioned in para 2 of the impugne d order.

We have heard the ld. AR and the ld. DR.

The ld. AR at the very outset submitted that the impugned assessment order as well as ld. CIT(A) order is ex-parte as no effective opportunity o f hearing was given to the assessee because the no tices allegedly sent to the assese e during the assessment proceedings as well as d uring hearing by the first appellate authority were never served/received by the assessee. It is further argued that there is no material brought on record that the notices sent by the ld. CIT(A) as well as by the Assessing Officer were ever received by the asse ssee.

The ld. DR on the other hand w hile supporting the judgment of the lower authorities has submitted that the assessee has miserably failed to avail the opportunity given by the Assessing Officer as well as by the ld. CIT(A) during the appellate proceedings and as such prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

We have co nsidered the rival submissions and examined the materials o n record. Sectio n 250(2)(a) of the Act provides as under:

Thus, the opportunity of hear ing is not mere for mality but a mandatory statutory require ment of law . On perusal of the assessment order as well as the ld. CIT(A) order, we have noticed that there is nothing to conclude that the notices sent by both the authorities were ever served/received by the assessee/appellant. In the absence of said proof, we are of the considered opinion that the disp osal of the appeal ex-parte by ld. CIT(A), and the best judgement assessment u/s 144 of the Act, in the absence of representation of the assessee during the assessment proceedings has resulted into miscarriage of justice. The effective opportunity of hearing has not been afforded by the ld. lower authorities. In view of that facts and reasons, the end of justice re quires that the matter be restored to the file of the ld. AO for decid ing the same afresh after giving effe ctive opportunity of hearing to asse ssee.

The assessee is also directed to pr esent his case before the Assessing Officer with in a period of 60 days of this order.

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in the above terms.