RAMI DEVI W/O SHRI BANWARLILAL,ANUPGARH vs. ITO, WARD-4, SRIGANGANAGAR

Per Dr. M. L. Meena, AM:

Both the captioned appeals has been filed by the assessee against

the separate orders of the ld. CIT(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi even dated 29.11.2022 in respect of Assessment Year: 2012-13.

2 ITA Nos. 171 & 172/Jodh/2022 Rami Devi v. ITO 2. At the outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that the

ld. CIT(A) has rejected the appeal ex-parte qua the assessee arising out of

ex-parte order passed by the ld. Assessing Officer u/s 144 of the Act. The

counsel submitted that CA who filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) online

while filing the appeal he has mentioned his own mobile number and email

address in the appeal column due to which the appellant assessee and the

changed counsel did not get any message regarding fixing of hearing by

the ld. CIT(A) vide notice mentioned in the impugned order. Accordingly,

the appeals were rejected ex-parte qua the assessee by the ld. CIT(A). He

further submitted that the appellant assessee also could not furnish the

requisite information before the ld. AO who had passed the ex-parte order

u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The counsel has made a humble

request that opportunities may be granted to the appellant assessee to

enable him to produce requisite evidences before the ld. AO to explain the

queries raised in the notices. The ld. AR submitted that he wishes to file the

relevant documentary evidence which is necessary to decide and

adjudicate the issue on merits of the case, (APB pg. 1-32). Accordingly, he

requested that the matter may be remanded back to the file of the AO to

pass denovo assessment after granting adequate opportunity of being

3 ITA Nos. 171 & 172/Jodh/2022 Rami Devi v. ITO heard to the appellant assessee. The ld. counsel undertakes to co-operate

in the fresh assessment proceedings before the ld. Assessing Officer.

in view of the principles of natural justice.

and the written submission filed before us. Admittedly, the appellant

assessee has claimed the deduction u/s 54F of the Act which has been

rejected by the AO and the ld. CIT(A) by passing the order ex-parte qua the

assessee. The ld. counsel for the appellant has contended that the

appellant could not submit any evidences, because he was under bonafide

belief, that his advocate must have complied but who did not comply with

the notices which resulted in passing ex-parte orders by both ITO and

CIT(A). In support, he filed an affidavit on record.

the sale of plot of the appellant assessee and hence no addition is called

for, and therefore, there should be no addition and consequential penalty of

concealment in the appellant’s case. He has filed a paper book containing

documentary evidences such as copy of sale deed of plot grain merchant

payment made by buying for plot booked and amount paid, house registry

4 ITA Nos. 171 & 172/Jodh/2022 Rami Devi v. ITO and construction made for residential house with photograph and

computation of income. In our view, the documents filed by the appellant

are vital documentary evidences to substantiate the claim of the appellant

and, therefore, admitted on record under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules. We

are of the considered view, that this is a fit case to be remanded back to

the file of the AO to pass donovo assessment order after considering the

additional evidence filed by the assessee on record and granting adequate

opportunity of being heard. Accordingly, we remand back the matter to the

file of the AO.

liberty to initiate and par the penalty order afresh if so required on passing

the denovo assessment order.

statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 07.12.2023

Sd/- Sd/- (Anikesh Banerjee) (Dr. M. L. Meena) Judicial Member Accountant Member *GP/Sr.PS* Copy of the order forwarded to:

5 ITA Nos. 171 & 172/Jodh/2022 Rami Devi v. ITO