MALKEET KAUR,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 28(1), NEW DELHI

That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A), NFAC grossly erred in confirming the order of AO, whereby impugned addition amounting to Rs. 70,50,000/- was made. 2. At the outset, it is submitted by the Ld. AR that appeal of the assessee could not be represented due to the reasons that assessee being an illiterate senior citizen, had no knowledge of the communications sent by income tax department, as a result she was unaware of the hearing notice issued through e- filing portal regarding the said appeal and was therefore unable to comply. It was further submitted that on 30.09.2024, an order u/s. 250 was issued by the NFAC confirming the additions so made by the AO in the assessments orders u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act dated 23.3.2023. However, the assessee became aware of the order only on 05.01.2025. In view of above, it was pleaded that one opportunity may be granted to the assessee by remitting back the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh consideration, for which Ld. DR did not controvert.

Upon careful consideration, in view of the aforesaid factual matrix, we are of the considered view that in the interest of justice, the issues require to be remitted back tot eh file of the CIT(A) with the directions to decide the same afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and pass a speaking order. We hold and direct accordingly.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 2 | P a g e

Our aforesaid decision will apply mutatis mutandis to other remaining appeal. Accordingly, the other remaining appeal is also allowed for statistical purposes in the aforesaid manner.