AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O R D E R
PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal arises from order dated 07.11.2025, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”). In this case, none appeared on behalf of the assessee on the last date of hearing, but it was decided to proceed ahead with the adjudication with the help of Ld. DR.
In this case, the assessee had not filed his return of income and did not also respond to notice u/s 142(1) of the Act issued by the Ld. AO. Thereafter, the Ld. AO passed an ex parte order through which substantial cash deposits seen in the accounts of the assessee where added.
The assessee could not succeed before the Ld. CIT(A) also as new evidence filed before him was not admitted as such and there is a detailed finding rejecting the prayer of the assessee to admit new evidence (page 8 of the impugned order).
The aggrieved assessee has approached the ITAT with grounds which challenge this action of Ld. CIT(A), whereby evidence which could not be filed before the Ld.AO was submitted before the first appellate authority and since it was not admitted therefore the assessee is aggrieved with an adverse order.
The Ld. DR took us through the assessment order and the impugned order and pointed out that the assessee did not have good and sufficient reason for filing fresh evidence before the Ld. CIT(A) and therefore the rejection of the same was justified.
We have considered the facts of the case and we have heard the Ld. DR. It is seen that the assessee has been denied a fair opportunity of pleading his case on merits before the Ld. CIT(A). Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, it is felt that the assessee deserves another chance to present the facts before the Ld. CIT(A). We direct that the Ld. CIT(A) would admit the fresh evidence and call for a remand report from the Ld. AO. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) would pass a speaking order. To this extent, we set aside the impugned order and remit this matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
In the result, appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose.