GIRIJESH KUMAR TIWARI,MAHARAJGANJ vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(4), MAHARAJGANJ

None has appeared on behalf of the assessee when the appeal was called for hearing. The notice issued through RPAD has been received back with the postal remark of insufficient details, whereas the notice was issued at the address given by the assessee in Form No.

However, there is no appearance on behalf of the assessee nor any application for adjournment has been filed. Accordingly, the Bench proposes to hear and dispose of this appeal ex parte.

The Assessing Officer has framed the assessment under section 143(3) made two additions of Rs. 2,34,860/- and Rs. 4,61,681/- under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee challenged the action of the Assessing Officer and filed the appeal which was disposed of by the CIT(A) vide impugned order.

I have heard the learned DR and perused the impugned order of the CIT(A). The CIT(A) in para no. 5 has given the details of the notice issued and response of the assessee as under:- “5. During the appellate proceeding, the assessee again failed to comply with by furnishing the documents required by issuing notices on 29.12.2020. 19.07.2022 fixing the case for 5.01.2021 and 28.07.2022 respectively. In response to appeal notice dated 29.12.2020 assessee filed an acknowledgment dated 05.01.2021 stating that written submission is being submitted along with supporting documents. But nothing has been filed by the assessee. No attachment with respect to details of the case were ever uploaded by the appellant as claimed by him. The appellant has completely failed to discharge the burden of proof. During the appellate proceedings, appellant has not filed any documentary proof regarding the unexplained amount of Rs. 4,61,681/- and opening stock of Rs. 2,34 860/- added by the assessing officer in the assessment order.”

Thus it is clear that the assessee submitted before the CIT(A) in the faceless appeal proceedings electronically the acknowledgement of filing the written submissions with supporting evidence but the CIT(A) did not find any attachment to the said communication. Accordingly, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee for want of any evidence. It is manifest from the impugned order that the CIT(A) after receiving the communication from the assessee noted that there was no attachment of written submissions and evidence. The CIT(A) passed the impugned order without giving further opportunity to the assessee to file the written submission and evidence again.

Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, the impugned order of the CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is remanded to the record of the CIT(A) for deciding the same afresh after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court after a conclusion of hearing on 10.01.2023 at Varanasi which is reduced in writing and signed on the date indicated below.