Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: DR. MANISH BORAD, HON’BLE
O R D E R
PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :
The present appeal is directed at the instance of the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter the “ld. CIT(A)”) dated 31/03/2023, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act’), for Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. For that the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in passing an ex-parte order without providing any reasonable opportunity of hearing.
2. For that the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs.90,582/- made by the A.O. under the head "Income from House Property".
3. For that the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the action of the A.O. in treating stitching income of Rs. 5,13,500/- under the head "Income from Undisclosed Sources".
Assessment Year: 2016-17 Beena Goenka 2
For that the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered that the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny, as such the impugned additions made by the A.O. were not sustainable in law.
The appellant craves leave to add further grounds of appeal or alter the grounds at the time of hearing.”
3. The first ground raised by the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in passing an ex-parte order without providing any reasonable opportunity of hearing. To deal with this ground, we have perused the impugned order and observed that during the course of appellate proceedings before the ld. CIT(A), various notice of hearing were issue but there was no response from the assessee and thus the ld. CIT(A) decided the appeal on the basis of the material available on record. We also notice that in the impugned order, no details have been given by the ld. CIT(A) as to for how many occasions notices were sent and the assessee did not comply. Considering this aspect and also considering the fact that the assessee was prevented from filing submissions in support of its grounds along with material evidence, if any, in the interest of justice, we deem it fit to restore the issue to the file of the ld. CIT(A), for de-novo adjudication, in accordance with law, after giving the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard, on the grounds of violations of the principles of natural justice. The ld. CIT(A) is directed to pass a speaking order after dealing with the merits of the case.
Assessment Year: 2016-17 Beena Goenka 3