M/S. XYLO MARKETING PVT. LTD.,ACIT,C.C-3(2),KOLKATA. vs. ACIT,C.C-3(2),KOLKATA., KOLKATA

Per Dr. Manish Borad, Accountant Member:- This appeal at the instance of assessee for assessment year 2010-11 is directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 17.05.2023,

(A.Y. 2010-11) M/s. Xylo Marketing Pvt. Limited (2) That under the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld.CIT(A) erred in passing order ex-parte. (3) That under the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in ignoring the adjournment request filed by assessee on 12/05/2023 seeking adjournment up to 27/05/2023. (4) That under the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of a sum of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- made by the AO under the section 68of income Tax act. The addition is unjustified and need to be deleted. (5) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law ,the LD.CIT(A) was wrong in ignoring the fact that the notice under section 147 is not jurisdictional since the necessary conditions as per the law were not fulfilled before the issuance of the same. (6) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the LD.CIT (A) was wrong in ignoring the fact that the Ld. A.O. was wrong in reopening the case for reassessment proceedings u/s 148 of the Act on the basis of vague reason recorded. (7) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) was wrong in ignoring the fact that the Ld. AO failed to pass speaking order with the objections raised by the assessee before the AO. (8) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in Law. the Ld.CIT(A) was wrong in ignoring the fact that the Ld. AO was wrong in arriving at conclusion that the sum received by the assessee company is accommodation entry given to the appellant company is not justified. (9) For that the order passed is infructuous since the principals since the principals of natural justice was not complied by not providing the opportunity of being heard to the appellant. (10) That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any ground or grounds of appeal before or at the time hearing. PRAYER: It is prayed that the order passed by C.I.T. (A), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTER (NFAC), DELHI, be set aside and full relief may be granted to the appellant.

(A.Y. 2010-11) M/s. Xylo Marketing Pvt. Limited 5. On due consideration of the above facts and circumstances, we are of the view that sub-section (6) of section 250 contemplates that ld. CIT(Appeals) would state the points in dispute and thereafter record reasons in support of conclusion on those points. A perusal of the impugned order would reveal that this mandatory procedure has not been followed by the ld. CIT(Appeals). Hence, the impugned order is not sustainable, it is set aside. The issues agitated by the assessee in the grounds of appeal extracted supra are remitted back to the ld. CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication on merit. The ld. Assessing Office having jurisdiction over the assessee would ensure the transmission of this record to the competent authority for allocation of this appeal to CIT(Appeals) through alleged National Faceless Disposal of the appeal.

(A.Y. 2010-11) M/s. Xylo Marketing Pvt. Limited