Entire Joint Property Value Cannot Be Taxed in One Co-owner’s Hands Without Verification: ITAT Delhi

Dharmender Gotam Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)

ITAT Remands Case Because CIT(A) Dismissed Appeal Without Deciding Joint Property Dispute on Merits; Ex Parte CIT(A) Order Set Aside Because Section 250(6) Requires Reasoned Findings; ITAT Orders Fresh Hearing Because Appeal Was Dismissed Through Cryptic Non-Speaking Order; Assessment Based on Unverified Third-Party Information Requires Proper Examination.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi, considered an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 22.09.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under Section 250 for Assessment Year 2017-18. The appeal arose from an assessment order dated 15.01.2025 passed under Sections 147, 144, and 144B of the Income Tax Act.

At the outset, the Tribunal condoned a delay of 29 days in filing the appeal. The assessee submitted that he was not familiar with technical legal procedures and was under the bona fide belief that the matter had concluded before the CIT(A). The Tribunal accepted the explanation and relied upon Supreme Court judgments including Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji and N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy while condoning the delay in the interest of substantial justice.

The assessee challenged additions made on account of immovable property transactions, share trading, futures and options transactions, and alleged escaped income. The assessee contended that the Assessing Officer incorrectly attributed the entire value of jointly owned immovable property transactions to him instead of considering only his proportionate share. According to the assessee, a property purchased for Rs.41 lakh was jointly acquired with his brother, making his share only Rs.20.50 lakh, while property sold for Rs.53 lakh was also jointly owned among several co-owners, reducing the assessee’s attributable share to Rs.13.25 lakh instead of the figure of Rs.10.90 crore adopted by the Assessing Officer.

The assessee further argued that the assessment was based on vague and unverified third-party information reflected on the Insight Portal and Form 26AS. It was contended that several figures relating to equity shares, futures, options, and property transactions adopted by the Assessing Officer did not match the actual broker-certified transaction statements and documentary records. The assessee also alleged improper service of notices under Sections 148A, 148, 142(1), and 144, denial of reasonable opportunity of hearing, and violation of principles of natural justice.

The Assessing Officer had reopened the assessment on the basis of information flagged as high-risk transactions on the Insight Portal. The information reflected transactions including purchase and sale of equity shares, sale of futures and options, purchase and sale of immovable properties, and interest income under Section 194A. Since the assessee had not filed any return of income and had allegedly not responded to notices issued under Sections 148A(b), 148, and 142(1), the Assessing Officer completed a best judgment assessment under Sections 147 and 144, making additions aggregating to Rs.33.48 crore.

The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). However, the CIT(A) issued four notices during appellate proceedings and recorded that there was no compliance from the assessee. Consequently, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex parte and upheld the assessment order by relying upon judicial precedents concerning dismissal for non-prosecution.

Before the Tribunal, the assessee submitted that the CIT(A) had passed a non-speaking ex parte order without deciding the issues on merits. It was argued that the assessee had now prepared documentary evidence and transaction details which required verification by the authorities below. The assessee requested restoration of the matter for fresh adjudication. The Departmental Representative also fairly agreed that the matter could be remanded to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal examined the record and observed that the assessee had indeed failed to comply with notices issued by both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A). At the same time, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal through a cryptic and non-speaking order without adjudicating the issues on merits.

The Tribunal emphasized that Section 250(6) requires the CIT(A) to pass a reasoned and speaking order stating the points for determination, decisions thereon, and reasons for such decisions. It noted that the CIT(A) had neither examined the merits of the issues nor conducted any enquiry with the Sub-Registrar, banks, or stock exchanges, despite possessing powers co-terminus with those of the Assessing Officer under Section 250(4).

The Tribunal further observed that higher appellate forums require proper reasoning from the first appellate authority to effectively examine the correctness of the decision. Mere dismissal for non-compliance without adjudication on merits was held to be unsustainable in law.

At the same time, the Tribunal also noted that the assessee was equally responsible for the situation due to repeated non-compliance before both lower authorities. However, since additional documentary evidence had now been produced before the Tribunal and the assessee disputed ownership and attribution of certain transactions, the matter required verification, examination, and investigation by the appellate authority.

Accordingly, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter for fresh adjudication after granting proper opportunity of hearing to both parties. The assessee was directed to cooperate during remand proceedings, failing which the CIT(A) would be free to decide the appeal ex parte on merits in accordance with law. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI

This appeal in ITA No. 8635/Del/2025for Assessment Year: 2017-18 has arisen form the learned CIT(A)’s appellate order u/s 250 dated 22.09.2025 in DIN & Order No: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1080985485(1), which in turn has arisen from the assessment order dated 15.01.2025 passed by the AO u/s 147 r.w.s 144 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called “the Act”), for Assessment Year 2017-18 in DIN ITBA/AST/S/147/2024-25/1072378897(1).

2. At the outset, it is observed that this appeal is filed belatedly by the assessee beyond the time stipulated u/s 253(3) of the 1961 Act by 29 days. The assessee has filed application for condonation of delay along with supporting affidavit, wherein the assessee has averred that the assessee is not well-versed with technical legal procedures , and was under a bonafide belief that the matter stood concluded by ld. CIT(A). It is averred that the assessee was advised subsequently that the appellate order passed by ld. CIT(A) is appealable before the Tribunal. It is further averred that immediately on receiving the correct legal advise and after arranging documents and records, the assessee took prompt steps to file appeal with the Tribunal and there are no malafide , negligence or dialetary tactics on the part of the assessee. It is further submitted that irreparable loss and injustice will be caused to the assessee , if the delay in filing this appeal is not condoned. The assessee has relied upon the judgment and order(s) of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji (1987) 167 ITR 471(SC) and in the case of N Balakrishnan v. M Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123 . Thus, the assessee has prayed that the delay in filing this appeal be condoned , and the appeal be heard on merits. After Going through the contents of the condonation application , affidavit filed and other materials on record, we condone the delay of 29 days in filing this appeal belatedly beyond the time prescribed u/s 253(3) , and proceed to adjudicate this appeal on merits in accordance with law. When substantial justice is pitted against the technicalities , the Courts will lean towards advancement of substantial justice. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector , Land Acqusition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji & Ors. 1987(2) SCC 107.

3. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal in Memo of Appeal filed with the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi:-

“1. That the learned AO and CIT(A) erred in attributing the full liability for the imunovable property transactions solely to the Appellant, ignoring the shared nature of the purchase and sale. Specifically, in the purchase of property at SultanpurMazra for Rs. 41,00,000, the Appellant was one of the two vendees sharing equally, making his attributable share only Rs. 20,50,000. In the sale of property at Singhu for Rs. 53,00,000. (Contrary to the AO’s figure of Rs. 10,90,00,000), the Appellant held only a 1/2 share among multiple vendors, making his attributable share only Rs. 13,25,000. This incorrect full attribution violates Section 147 by reopening and assessing based on incomplete and unverified third-party information, rendering the aggregated liability of Rs. 11,31,00,000. arbitrary and unsustainable.

2. That the assessment is invalid as no specific details for the purchase and sale of immovable properties were mentioned in the order, rendering the property-related computations vague, arbitrary, and unsupported by evidence, in contravention of the requirements under Section 148A and Section 147 for precise and verifiable information before reopening, particularly when the Appellant’s verified registry dates (17/10/2016 for purchase and 15/12/2016 for sale) were disregarded.

3. That as per Form 26AS, the Income Tax Department records reflect a purported sale of property by the assessee for a consideration of Rs. 10,90,00,000/-. However, No Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) is shown as deducted in Form 26AS for this transaction. To clarify, the assessee, DharmenderGautam, along with his brother, ParveenGautam, jointly sold an agricultural property in which assessee and his brother ParveenGautam has 1/2 share and 1/3 shares is with Jia Prakash and Vinod Gautam and 1/6 shares is with Akshay Gautam, Jugal Gautam and Lalita. The actual total sale consideration for the property was Rs. 53,00,000., and assessee received the amount as per his share Rs. 13,25,000. The Assessment which was done by the Ld. Assessing Office is totally based on third party information which cannot be relied upon.

4. That another immovable property which is shown in form 26AS. That as per Form 26AS, the Income Tax Department records reflect a purported purchase of property by the assessee for a consideration of Rs. 41,00,000/-. The actual total purchase consideration for the property was Rs. 41,00,000/- that is between two brothers Parveen Gautam and Dharmender Gautam which amounted to 20,50,000/- to each, not only the assessee who had purchase the property.

5. That the learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-party without ensuring proper service of notices, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and the Appellant’s right to a fair hearing under Sections 250 and 251 of the Act. The Appellant did not receive any notices during the appellate proceedings, rendering the ex-party order invalid and liable to be set aside.

6. That the assessment order dated 15/01/2025 under Section 147 read with Sections 144 and 144B is bad in law and on facts, as it was passed without affording the Appellant a reasonable opportunity to respond to the notices issued, including those dated 24/02/2024, 15/03/2024, 16/07/2024, 04/10/2024. 12/11/2024, 18/11/2024, and 24/12/2024. The Appellant did not receive many of these notices, and although a few were received, his unawareness and lack of professional knowledge prevented appropriate response, leading to a best judgment assessment under Section 144 without proper inquiry or verification.

7. That the penalty imposed under Section 270A for under-reporting of income is illegal and unwarranted, as there was no deliberate under-reporting by the Appellant; the discrepancies, particularly in property transactions, arose due to procedural lapses in notice service, incorrect full attribution of shared amounts, and reliance on unverified third-party data, while the Appellant agrees with the Form 26AS-based assessment only related to the interests not moveable and immoveable property.

8. That the penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) in relation to the intimation letter dated 16/07/2024 is invalid, as the Appellant did not receive many notices including potentially this one, and no opportunity was provided to comply, making the levy, arbitrary and contrary to the proviso to Section 272A (1), especially considering the Appellant’s unawareness.

9. That the penalty under Section 271B for non-compliance with Section 44AB is unjustified, as the threshold limit exceedance was based on erroneously aggregated income figures that included full shared property transactions not attributable to the Appellant (eg, full Rs. 41,00,000/- purchase and Rs. 10,90,00,000 sale instead of Rs. 20,50,000/- and Rs. 13,25,000. Respectively), and no reasonable cause for non­compliance was considered under Section 27313 given the Appellant’s lack of professional knowledge.

10. That the penalty under Section 271A for failure to maintain books of account under Section 44AA is bad in law, as it stems from the same flawed assessment of income dominated by incorrect property attributions, and the computation dated 11/07/2025 of Rs. 39,48,09,866/- is arbitrary and inflated without verifying the Appellant’s actual shared amounts or providing an opportunity to explain.

11. That the Ld. Assessing Officer has gravely erred in law and on facts in computing the alleged purchase and sale of equity shares, futures, and options in the hands of the assessee on the basis of incorrect and unverified third-party information. That as per the impugned assessment order, the Ld. AO has alleged that the assessee purchased equity shares amounting to Rs. 2,65,93,257/- and effected sales amounting to Rs. 2,64,21,388/-. However, the actual and authenticated transaction statement issued by the assessee’s registered broker, Fairwealth Securities Ltd., clearly establishes that during the period 01.09.2016 to 31.03.2017, the total purchase of equity shares was only Rs. 83,35,553.85, and the total sale consideration was Rs.88,75,915.58, which is wholly inconsistent with and irreconcilable to the figures adopted by the Ld. AO. That further, the Ld. AO has erroneously recorded that the assessee had sales of futures amounting to Rs. 13,52,99,229/-, sales of options amounting to Rs. 2,49,902/-, and sale of equity shares settled otherwise than by actual delivery amounting to Rs.9,44,73,017/-. Contrary thereto, the duly verified and broker-certified statement issued by Angel One Ltd. categorically demonstrates that the assessee had incurred negative capital gain (net loss) of Rs-15,77,278.59 and the trading results were entirely negative, with no such positive tumover or income whatsoever.

12. That the entire proceedings under Sections 148A, 147, 144, and 144B are procedurally defective, as the notices were not properly served, and the reopening was based on vague and unverified information without satisfying the conditions precedent under Section 148A. particularly for the property transactions.

13. That the learned CIT(A) failed to independently examine the merits of the case, including the shared property and securities details, notice service issues, and mechanically upheld the AO’s order, warranting remand or reversal on grounds of non-application of mind.

14. That without prejudice to the above, the Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, or withdraw any ground of appeal before or at the time of hearing.”

4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has not filed his return of income with department for the year under consideration. As per information available on Insight Portal and flagged by High Risk Transaction, it was observed by the AO that the assessee(non filer) has entered into following transactions during the year under consideration :

4.2 The AO observed that the assessee has not filed return of income for the year under consideration , and the aforesaid transactions remained unexplained and unsubstantiated. It was observed by the AO that as per information on record, income of Rs. 39,62,09,866/- has escaped assessment. The AO issued and served notice u/s 148A(b) of the 1961 Act on 24.02.2024.The assessee did not responded to the aforesaid notice. Thereafter, notice u/s 148 dated 15.03.2024 was issued by the AO to the assessee for filing his return of income. In response to aforesaid notice, the assessee did not file his return of income with Revenue. There were several further opportunities granted by the AO to the assessee including issuance of notices u/s 142(1) and SCN u/s 144 , which are elaborately recorded in page 3 of the assessment order , but there were no response/compliance by the assessee. The AO also made enquiries u/s 133(6) of the 1961 Act with the Bank, NSE , Sub-Registrar VI C Saraswati Vihar, Delhi. Since the aforesaid reported transactions on the Insight Portal of the Income-tax department remained unexplained by the assessee owing to non compliance by the assessee despite being granted several opportunities , the AO framed an exparte assessment order dated 15.01.2025 u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 read with Section 144B of the 1961 Act , wherein additions to the income to the tune of Rs.33,48,17,352/- were made by the AO in the hands of the assessee.

5. Aggrieved , the assessee filed first appeal with ld. CIT(A). During Appellate Proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) issued as many as four notices to the assesse but again the assessee made no compliance before ld. CIT(A). , which led to the dismissal of the appeal of the assessee by Ld. CIT(A) ex-parte by upholding the assessment order of the AO vide order dated 22.09.2025, by holding as under:-

“4. During the course of appellate proceedings, various notice were issued from time to time, viz., on 28.07.2025, 14.08.2025, 28.08.2025 and finally on 08.09.2025. Through all these notices, the appellant was requested to file a reply along with supporting documents. However, no submissions were made during the entire appellate proceedings. Details of opportunity accorded and communicated to the appellant are furnished in the following table:

5. However, the final notice also remained unanswered. As the appellant during the entire appellate proceedings did not comply with the statutory notices, it categorically shows that the appellant is not interested to pursue this appeal. In the absence of any reply from the appellant, the undersigned is left with no option but to decide the matter ex-parte based on material on record. The maxim ‘Vigilantbus, non dormientibus, jurasubveniunt’ le. ‘the law assists those who are vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights is squarely applicable in this case.

5.1 It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of B.N. Bhattacharjee and Another (118 ITR 461 that appeal does not mean merely filing of memo of appeal but also pursuing it effectively. In cases where the appellant does not want to pursue the appeal, appellate authorities have inherent power to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution as held by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of M/s Chemipol vs. Union of India in Excise Appeal No. 62 of 2009. While deciding the issue, the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay has referred to the observations of Hidayatullah, Chief Justice (as His Lordship then was) in Sunderlal Mannalal Vs. NandramdasDwarkadas AIR 1958 MP 260 wherein it was observed: “Now the Act does not give any power of dismissal. But it is axiomatic that no court or tribunal is supposed to continue a proceeding before it when the party who has moved it has not appeared nor cared to remain present. The dismissal, therefore, is an inherent power which every tribunal possesses…”

5.2 The Hon’ble ITAT in ITA No. 1025-1027/Chandi/2005 for the A.Y. 2002-03 in the case of M/s Chhabra Land and Housing Ltd. after following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of B.Ν. Bhattachargee, 118 ITR 461 (SC) held that the appeal does not mean merely filing of the appeal but effectively pursuing it. Keeping in view of the aforesaid factual position, the appeal filed by the appellant is, therefore, decided on merits.

5.3. Hon. ITAT in IT APPEAL NO. 323 (AGRA) OF 2012 IN THE CASE OF Shivangi Steel (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle has held that ‘Where assessee inspite of large number of adjournments granted by Commissioner (Appeals) did not produce any document in respect of grounds of appeal, nor made written or oral submissions, Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in proceeding exparte against assessee’.

5.4 Hon. ITAT (Cochin Bench), In M.P. NOS. 71 TO 79 (COCH.) OF 2013 IN THE CASE OF Tourist Resorts Kerala Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle -1(1), Thiruvananthupuram has held that ‘Where assessee had falled to show that there was a reasonable cause for non-appearance on date of hearing of appeal, applications filed by assessee for setting aside exparte order and restoring appeal were to be dismissed’.

5.5 Reliance is also placed in the Supreme Court judgment in CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2463 OF 2019 IN THE CASE OF Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (Central)-1 v. NRA Iron & Steel (P.) Ltd.

5.6 Reliance is also placed upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashokji Chanduji Thakor Vs PCIT, [2021] 130 taxmann.com 181 (SC).

6. As noted from the facts of the case and material available on record, it is seen that the Assessing Officer made the impugned additions, based on materials available on record, after according proper and adequate opportunity to the appellant and after marshalling all the facts. The appellant neither produced any evidence in support of his claim nor complied with the various notices issued from time to time during the entire appellate proceedings. Hence, it is held that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer based on his findings and proper adjudication, is quite in order and the same is hereby confirmed. Accordingly, Grounds of appeal of the appellant are dismissed.

7. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

6. Still aggrieved , the assessee has filed second appeal with the Tribunal. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte appellate order without discussing the issues in hands on merits. It is also submitted that there were discrepancies in the order of the authorities below as the assessee has not entered into certain transactions . The assessee has filed a chart to submit that the assessee has only entered into transaction which are mentioned in the last column of the said chart , while as per AO certain additions were made vide assessment order framed against the assessee which are now denied by the assessee. It is submitted that the matter may be set aside and restored back so that the assessee can submit evidences to prove its contentions, and such documents can be verified/examined by the authorities below.

6.2 Ld. CIT-DR fairly submitted that matter can go back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for denovo adjudication of the appeal of the assessee.

7. We have considered rival contentions and perused the material on record. We have observed that the assessee is a non-filer and has not filed his return of income with the Revenue for the impugned assessment year. As per information available on Insight Portal and flagged by High Risk Transaction, it was observed by the AO that the assessee(non filer) has entered into following transactions during the year under consideration :

The AO observed that the assessee has not filed return of income for the year under consideration , and the aforesaid transactions remained unexplained and unsubstantiated. It was observed by the AO that as per information on record, income of Rs. 39,62,09,866/- has escaped assessment. The AO issued and served notice u/s 148A(b) of the 1961 Act on 24.02.2024.The assessee did not responded to the aforesaid notice. Thereafter, notice u/s 148 dated 15.03.2024 was issued by the AO to the assessee for filing his return of income.In response to aforesaid notice, the assessee did not file his return of income with Revenue. There were several further opportunities granted by the AO to the assessee including issuance of notice u/s 142(1) and SCN u/s 144 , but there was no response/compliance by the assessee. The AO also made enquiries u/s 133(6) of the 1961 Act with the Bank, NSE , Sub-Registrar VI C Saraswati Vihar, Delhi. Since the aforesaid reported transactions on the Insight Portal of the Income-tax department remained unexplained and undisclosed by the assessee owing to assessee not filing return of income u/s 139 as well in response to notice u/s 148 as well owing to non compliance by the assessee to the notices issued by the AO despite being granted several opportunities , the AO framed an exparte assessment order dated 15.01.2025 u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 read with Section 144B of the 1961 Act , wherein additions to the income to the tune of Rs.33,48,17,352/- were made by the AO in the hands of the assessee. The assessee filed first appeal with ld. CIT(A), wherein the assessee challenged the aforesaid additions as were made by the AO . The assessee has filed statement of fact filed before the ld. CIT(A) wherein it is stated that the assessee did not received notice u/s 148A(b) of the 1961Act.claimed to be issued and served on the assessee by the AO on 24.02.2024. It is further claimed in the aforesaid statement of fact that due to lack of knowledge of the notice ,the assessee could not comply with the notice issued u/s 148 by the AO. It is further claimed that proper and adequate opportunity of heard was not provided by the AO, and huge additions have been made in the hands of the assessee. In the statement of fact filed before ld. CIT(A) . In the said statement of fact, the assessee has also sought cross examination wrt relied upon documents and statements. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte in limine without deciding the issues arising in the appeal on merits. The ld. CIT(A) issued as many four notices as stated in appellate order but there was no compliance by the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) simply dismissed the appeal of the assessee by a non-speaking cryptic order , and upheld the assessment order without deciding the issues arising in the appeal on merits, mainly on account of non compliance by the assessee to the four notices issued by ld. CIT(A). The appellate order passed by ld. CIT(A) is reproduced in the preceding para’s of this order and is not repeated again. We have observed that the ld. CIT(Appeals) has not decided the appeal on merits, and the appeal of the assessee was dismissed ex-parte in limine without deciding the issues arising in the first appeal on merit in accordance with law by simply upholding the assessment order, mainly on the grounds of non-compliance by the assessee to the notices issued by ld. CIT(A). The appellate order passed by ld. CIT(A) as reproduced above is a non speaking cryptic order passed ex-parte in limine without deciding the issue arising in the appeal on merits. Even, there is no mention as to the service of the notices being effected by ld. CIT(A) on to the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) is required and obligated to pass appellate order in compliance with the provisions of section 250(6), as ld. CIT(A) is required to pass reasoned and speaking order on merits in accordance with law.

Reference is drawn to provisions of Section 250(6), wherein ld. CIT(A) has to state point for determination, his decision and reasons thereof. The ld. CIT(A) even did not made any enquiry, and not even assessment record was called for by ld. CIT(A). No enquiry was even made by ld. CIT(A) with Sub-Registrar, NSE and Banks. Reference is drawn to provisions of Section 250(4).The appellate order passed by ld. CIT(A) is subject to further appeal with ITAT u/s 253. The appellate order passed by ITAT is subject to further appeal before Hon’ble High Court u/s 260A. The judgment and order passed by Hon’ble High Court is also subject to challenge before Hon’ble Supreme Court. Thus, the appellate order passed by ld. CIT(A) is not a final order, as it is subject to challenge before higher appellate authority. Thus, Reasons which weighed in the minds of the adjudicating authority while adjudicating appeal on merits of the issues are cardinal as the higher appellate authority can then adjudicate appeal on the issues arising in appeal before them, based on decision and reasoning of ld. CIT(A) in deciding the issues. If the ld. CIT(A) simply dismiss the appeal merely because the assessee did not comply with the notices issued by ld. CIT(A) in limine without adjudicating issues arising in the appeal on merits , such order is not sustainable in the eyes of law keeping in view provisions of Section 250(6) , and also higher appellate authorities will be deprived to see what weighed in the mind of the ld. CIT(A) while adjudicating appeal as it will be an order passed without reasoning on the issues on merits . The appellate order of the CIT(A) is clearly in violation of section 250(6) of the Act and liable to be set aside. Merely stating the assessment order passed by AO is upheld, and that the assessee has not submitted details/documents is not sufficient. The ld. CIT(A) is not toothless as his powers are co-terminus with the powers of the AO, which even includes power of enhancement. It is equally true that the assessee also did not complied with the notices issued by ld. CIT(A) and did not file the requisite details/documents to support his contentions. Thus, the assessee is equally responsible for its woes as the assessee did not comply with the notices issued by the AO as well ld. CIT(A). The assessee has now filed before ITAT additional evidences by way of paper book (Page 43-101/PB) . These documents filed as additional requires verification by the authorities. The assessee is also claiming that certain income as added by the AO does not belong to it. These requires verification, investigation and examination by authorities below. Keeping in view the entire factual matrix as culled out above in the preceding para’s of this order, it will be fair to both the parties as well in the interest of justice, that the appellate order of ld. CIT(Appeals) be set aside and the matter be remanded back to the file of ld. CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication after giving proper opportunity of being heard to both the parties w.r.t. the issues arising in the appeal .The assessee is directed to comply with the notice issued by ld. CIT(Appeals) during the appellate proceedings in set aside remand proceedings, otherwise ld. CIT(A) shall be free to decide the appeal ex-parte on merits in accordance with law, after complying with provisions of Section 250(6). We clarify that we have not commented on merits of the issues. Thus, the appellate order passed by ld. CIT(A) is set aside and matter is restored back to the file of ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. We order accordingly.

8. In the result,the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order is pronounced in the Open Court on 28.04. 2026 in the presence of both the parties on the conclusion of hearing , and reduced to writing and signed on 30.04.2026.