SURENDER SHARMA,PANIPAT vs. ITO WARD-4, PANIPAT

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

It emerges at the outset with the able assistance coming from the Revenue side that the learned CIT(A)/NFAC has rejected the assessee's lower appeal "in limine" for want of payment of advance tax thereby invoking section 249(4)(b) of the Act. He appears to have upheld the Assessing Officer's Surender Sharma 2 action making section 69 unexplained investment addition of Rs.13,50,000/- in other words for the above foregoing sole reason.

The Revenue could hardly dispute during the course of hearing that there is no indication in the CIT(A)/NFAC's lower appellate discussion about the assessee's advance tax liability determination as per the provisions of the Act. Nor he appears to have afforded any opportunity to make good the said alleged default, if any. Faced with this situation and in the larger interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to restore the issue back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for it's afresh adjudication on merits, preferably within three effective opportunities of hearing, subject to a rider that the assessee shall be the taxpayer's onus and responsibility only to file and prove all the relevant facts in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.

This assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 16/07/2025. (S. Rifaur Rahman) (Satbeer Singh Godara) Accountant Member Judicial Member