" IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE MS SUCHITRA RAGHUNATH KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.956/SRT/2024 Assessment Year: (2010-11) (Hybrid hearing) Vasantiben Nareshbhai Tandel, House No.61/1, Kadaiya, Machhiwad, Nani Daman – 396210, Damand and Diu (UT) Vs. The ITO, Ward - 5, Vapi èथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: AHSPT6036E (अपीलाथŎ/Appellant) (ŮȑथŎ /Respondent) Appellant by Shri Hardik Vora, AR Respondent by Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 02/06/2025 Date of Pronouncement 13/06/2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, AM: This appeal by the assessee emanates from the order passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’), dated 12.07.2024 by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘CIT(A)’] for the Assessment Year (AY) 2010-11. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in passing order without considering the submission filed by the assessee during the appellate proceedings. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) has erred in passing non- speaking order without stating as to why the submission filed by the assessee is not accepted. 2 ITA No.956/SRT/2024/AY.2010-11 Vasantiben Nareshbhai Tandel 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) has erred in passing order without considering additional evidences filed by assessee during the appellate proceedings. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming initiation of re-assessment proceedings u/s 148 of the Act. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,88,04,680/- on account unexplained investment. of 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,88,04,680/- unexplained on account investment of without considering that assessee is engaged in F&O Trading without taking actual delivery of shares and payment is made only to the extent of loss. 7. It is therefore prayed that the above addition/disallowance made by the assessing officer may please be deleted. 8. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that are the assessee was a non-filer and she made share transaction of Rs.20,000/- and more on many occasions. On perusal of ITD data base, no return of income was found for the AY.2010-11. The Assessing Officer (for short, ‘AO’) found that the assessee had made share transaction of Rs.3,60,65,355/- and invested of Rs.1,88,04,679/- in various companies during the year under consideration. Thereafter, the AO re-opened the case u/s 147 of the Act after recording the reasons and getting prior approval from the Competent Authority. Various statutory and show cause notices were issued to the assessee. There was non-compliance to all the notices including the show cause notice. Despite ample opportunities 3 ITA No.956/SRT/2024/AY.2010-11 Vasantiben Nareshbhai Tandel afforded to explain the sources of investment with supporting evidence, the assessee neither filed any reply/submission nor any explanation. Therefore, AO issued show cause notice as to why Rs.1,88,04,679/- should not be treated as unexplained investment. Again, there was no compliance. Thereafter, the AO has completed the assessment order u/s 144 of the Act, on the basis of materials available on record. He observed that the preliminary onus to prove the source of investment is on the assessee, but he failed to do. The assessee was requested to explain the nature and sources of investment. In absence of any compliance from the assessee, the AO treated at Rs.1,88,04,679/- as unexplained investment and added it to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings was also initiated u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed this appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) observed that the assessee was non-compliant during the assessment proceedings. He confirmed the addition of Rs.1,88,04,769/- made by AO and held that the assessee concealed particulars of income u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and hence, the appeal was dismissed by him. 5. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submitted that both lower authorities have passed ex parte orders without hearing the appellant on merit. He also submitted that the order of the CIT(A) is a cryptic order and not as per the mandate u/s 250(6) of the Act. He 4 ITA No.956/SRT/2024/AY.2010-11 Vasantiben Nareshbhai Tandel submitted that the non-compliance of the notices was not deliberate on the part of the appellant. The appellant is now ready to submit all details and evidences in support of the grounds raised by him before CIT(A). He requested that one more opportunity may be given to the appellant to plead his case on merit. 6. On the other hand, learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) of the revenue submitted that the CIT(A) has passed the order dismissing the appeal due to non-compliance during the assessment proceedings as well as appellate proceedings. He would, however, have no objection if the matter is restored to file of AO. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The AO made additions of Rs.1,88,04,679/- towards unexplained source of investment. The CIT(A) has dismissed appeal because the appellant did not comply with the notices issued by the AO. The ld. AR submitted that the AO passed an ex parte order, which was confirmed by the CIT(A) in absence of supporting details and evidences. He submitted that the non- compliance to the notices was not deliberate but due to circumstances beyond control of the appellant. The appellant is ready to submit all details in support of the grounds raised by him. He, therefore, requested that one more opportunity may be given to the appellant to plead his case on merit. After considering the contentions of both parties and perusing the order of lower authorities, we find that the CIT(A) has passed a cryptic order. He has 5 ITA No.956/SRT/2024/AY.2010-11 Vasantiben Nareshbhai Tandel not even mentioned as to when the notices were issued by him. He has not passed an order as per the mandate of section 250(6) of the Act and dismissed the appeal of assessee only on the ground of non-compliance. The order passed by the CIT(A) is clearly violative of the express provisions of section 250(6) of the Act, which provides that the appellate orders of the CIT(A) are to state the points arising in the appeal, the decision of the authority thereon and the reasons for such decisions. The underlying rationale of the provision is that such orders are subject to further appeal to the appellate Tribunal. Speaking order would obviously enable a party to know precise points decided in his favour or against him. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the assessment order was confirmed by CIT(A) in ex parte order, we are of the considered view that the assessee deserves one more opportunity to contest his case on merit. In the interest of justice, we set aside the order of CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of CIT(A) with a direction to pass fresh order in accordance with law after granting adequate opportunity of hearing to assessee. The assessee is directed to be vigilant and to furnish all details and explanation as needed by CIT(A) by not seeking adjournment without valid reason. With this direction, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Since, we have remitted the file back to CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, the other grounds are not adjudicated, being academic in nature. 6 ITA No.956/SRT/2024/AY.2010-11 Vasantiben Nareshbhai Tandel 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order is pronounced under provision of Rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 on 13/06/2025. Sd/- Sd/- (SUCHITRA R. KAMBLE) (BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Surat Ǒदनांक/ Date: 13/06/2025 SAMANTA Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Assessee 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR/AR, ITAT, Surat 6. Guard File By Order // TRUE COPY // Assistant Registrar/Sr. PS/PS ITAT, Surat "