Tally for CAs in Industry Silver Edition (Single User) Tally Renewal (Auditor Edition) Need Tally for Clients? (Tie-up with us!!!)
Open DEMAT Account with in 24 Hrs and start investing now!
From the Courts »
Open DEMAT Account in 24 hrs
 Shri Ramit Vohra, Prop. M/s. Impact Enterprises, 9210/5, Multani Dhanda, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi Vs. ACIT, Circle : 63 (1) New Delhi.
 Smt. Bhavana Jain, Prop. M/s Akash Metal Industries, outside Barsi Gate, Hansi, Haryana Vs. ITO, Ward-1, Hisar, Haryana
 M/s Pearey Lal & Sons (E.P.) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. Vs. ACIT, Rohtak.
 Rajvanti Devi R/o Liwan Sonipat w/o Phool Kumar 96, R Model Town, Sonipat. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Sonipat.
 M/s. Anthena Multitrade Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly known as Good Life Impex Pvt. Ltd.) Vs. Income Tax Officer(E), Ward 6(2), (Old Jurisdiction)
 Ram Naresh Sikarwar, Ballabgarh. Vs. ITO, Ward-II(2), Faridabad.
 District Manager, HAFED, Site No.01, Opp.Main Market, Sector-5, Kurukshetra, Haryana Vs. JCIT, TDS Range, Karnal, Haryana
 Ravi Kumar Verma C/o. Pushkar Jain, Advocate, 115-C, Jain Nagar, Merut City-2 Uttar Pradesh Vs. ACIT Circle-2 Mewat
 Poonam Jain, A-2/15, F.F., Phase-3 Ashok Vihar, New Delhi Vs. Ito, Ward 34(4), Room No. 713, E-2 Block, Civic Centre, New Delhi
 Nitin Gupta Shree Ji Jewellers, Shop No. 1168/3 and 4, Kucha Mahajani, Chandni Chowk Vs. ITO Ward-47(4) New Delhi

Jamaaluddin, S/O: Chunner Ahmed, Ward No. 7, Rafikabadcolony,DASNA, Gaziabad. Vs. ITO, Ward-1 (3) Gaziabad.
July, 23rd 2021




ITA No.- 2627/Del/ 2018
(Assessment Year: 2014-15)

Jamaaluddin, Vs. ITO, Ward-1 (3)
S/O: Chunner Ahmed, Gaziabad.
Ward No. 7,

PAN No. AFAPJ5448J Respondent

Assessee by None
Revenue by Ms Anima, Sr. DR

Date of hearing: 22/7/2021
Pronouncement on 22/7/2021


Aggrieved by the order dated 02/01/2018 passed by the learned

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Gaziabad (“Ld. CIT(A)”), in the
case of Sh. Jamaluddin (“the assessee”), for the assessment year 2014-15,
assessee preferred this appeal.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the
business of sale/of scrap and for the assessment year 2014-15 he had

filed his return of income on 24/9/2014 declaring an income of Rs.
4,87,790/-. Assessment under section 143(3)/144 of the Income Tax Act,
1961 (for short “the Act”) at an income of Rs. 68, 87, 790/-by making
addition of Rs. 64 Lacs under section 69 of the Act in respect of the cash
deposits/investment in saving bank account.

3. Aggrieved by such an action of the learned Assessing Officer,
assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A), however,
observed that the assessee had not enter appearance despite several
opportunities and filed applications of adjournment and without the
filing any written submissions. Ld. CIT(A) concluded that for no
prosecution the appeal had to be dismissed. Ld. CIT(A) referred to certain
in support of her observation that for no prosecution of the appeal, the
appeal of the assessee had to be dismissed. Ld. CIT(A), thereafter,
referred to certain facts and basing on the observations of the learned
Assessing Officer that the assessee failed to substantiate the source of
cash deposits in his savings bank account, dismissed the appeal.

4. Assessee is aggrieved by such dismissal of the appeal by the Ld.
CIT(A) and filed this appeal before us contending that the dismissal of a
genuine appeal in ex parte manner for the absence of the assessee
resulted in miscarriage of justice; and that as a matter of fact, on the last
date of hearing, namely, on 21/12/2017 the learned counsel for the
assessee submitted an application for adjournment by way of email, but
the assessee was not informed of the next date of hearing due to which
the assessee could not make any appearance, but looking at the absence
of the assessee the Ld. CIT(A) reached a conclusion that the appeal was

liable to be dismissed for nonprosecution. Assessee also challenged the
impugned order on merits also.

5. When the matter is called, neither the assessee nor any authorised
representative entered appearance. It could be seen from the record that
the notice sent to the address given in form No. 36 is returned with the
endorsement of the postal servant that the addressee left. If the assessee
is available in such address, such notice should have been served on the
assessee. If for any reason, the assessee is not available there, it is for the
assessee to make arrangements for service of such notice by furnishing
the address where the assessee would be available, or to deliver it to
some authorised person, or by making request to the postal department
to detain the mail till the assessee claims the same. Since the assessee
does not seem to have adopted any of these methods, we are the
considered opinion that no time could be granted. Basing on the record
we proceed to hear the counsel for Revenue and decide the matter on

6. At the outset, Ld. DR submits that no doubt the impugned order is
an ex parte order, but in view of the fact that persistently the assessee
was not cooperating with the disposal of appeal on merits, the Ld. CIT(A)
was left with no option but to proceed ex parte. She further submitted
that even before this Tribunal also the assessee is exhibiting the same
attitude of non-cooperation and therefore, the assessee does not
deserve any lenient treatment. She, however, submits that if for any
reason this Tribunal deems it just and necessary to proceed with the
matter and to look into the merits of the case, in all fairness, it would be
reasonable to remand issue back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for disposal

of the appeal on merits, because the Ld. CIT(A) could not advert to the
merits of the case in the light of the submissions, if any to be made, on
behalf of the assessee.

7. We have gone through the record in the light of the submissions
made by the Ld. DR. No doubt, the impugned order is an ex parte order,
though the Ld. CIT(A) incidentally referred to the facts of the case and to
the observations of the learned Assessing Officer. The crux of grievance
of the assessee is that on 21/12/2017 an adjournment application was
referred by way of email, and subsequently the assessee did not receive
any communication as to the next date of hearing; whereas the
impugned order was passed on 02/01/2018. The impugned order shows
that at the request of the assessee the adjournment was granted till
20/12/2017, but it does not speak of any adjournment application
submitted by the assessee on 21 to 2017. The appeal is disposed of
within a span of three months from the date of issuance of the first
notice to the assessee.

8. In the circumstances, while taking into consideration the
submissions made by the Ld. DR and also the grievance of the assessee in
the grounds of appeal, we are of the considered opinion that the ends of
Justice would be met by granting an opportunity to the assessee to put
forth his case before the Ld. CIT(A) and get the matter disposed of on
merits. With this view of the matter, we set aside the impugned order,
and restore the appeal to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for disposal according
to law, on merits, after affording an opportunity to the assessee. It is
made clear that it is the last opportunity granted to the assessee, and if

the assessee does not choose to avail the same, no further opportunity
would be granted.

9. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Order pronounced in the open court on this the 22nd day of July,
2021 immediately after conclusion of hearing on virtual mode.

Sd/- Sd/-
Dated: 22/7/2021.

Copy forwarded to:
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT
4. CIT(Appeals)



Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2021 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Ritz Consulting