BEHRAM JIMMY KARBHARI,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A)-46, MUMBAI

आदेश / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M):

1.On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the order u/s 250 without giving opportunity.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) erred by not granting the request for adjournment filed on 08.09.2022 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) erred in disallowing deduction u/s 80C amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/-. 4 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) erred in making adhoc addition of Rs. 74,45,493/- being 1% of alleged share transactions of Rs. 74,45,49,384/-, whereas in fact and on the basis of evidence with the AO, the appellant has incurred a loss. 5. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete any or all the above grounds of appeal

3. The assessee representative was present at the time of hearing and sought for an adjournment. But we find that the order of the ld. CIT(A) has been passed exparte on the ground that there was no response from the side of the assessee. But Ground No.2 raised by the assessee states that assessee had filed an adjournment request before the ld. CIT(A) on 08/09/2022. Either way this is only an exparte order passed by the ld. CIT(A) without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee. Hence, in the interest of justice and fair play, we deem it fit and appropriate to restore this appeal to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for denovo adjudication on merits in accordance with law. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in open Court on 02/01/2023.