MAHAMMADA SADIK ULLA,HORAPETE ANJUMAN ROAD, CHITRADURGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD, CHITRADURGA

That the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in so far it is prejudicial to the interests of the appellant, is bad and erroneous in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. That the notice u/s 148 is bad in law as the same is issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of Faceless Assessing Officer and therefore, assessment order is also liable to be quashed.

That the learned lower authorities erred in law and facts in deciding the assessment and first appeal proceedings ex-parte for non-prosecution and non-response. 4. That the learned lower authorities ought to have appreciated the fact that faceless assessment and appeal proceedings are new to the assessees and therefore, some non-compliance should not result to huge demand. 5. That the learned lower authorities ought to have provided an opportunity of being heard by way of conducting physical hearing with physical communication for the purpose of conducting effective proceedings. 6. That the learned lower authorities erred in law and on facts in making an addition of Rs. 13,00,500 as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act for not explaining the investment in foreign currency. 7. That the learned lower authorities erred in law and on facts in making an addition u/s 69 of the Act even though the appellant has not purchased the foreign currency. 8. That the learned lower authorities erred in law and on facts in estimating the income at 8% even after appreciating the business model of the appellant and therefore, ought to have estimated income at 2.5% to 3% of the turnover. 9. That the learned lower authorities erred in law and on facts in not bringing any materials on record for proposing to make an addition. 10. Each of the above grounds is without prejudice to one another and the appellant craves leave of the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore to add, delete, amend or otherwise modify one or more of the above grounds either before or at the time of hearing of this appeal. 5. At the outset, the learned AR submitted that the Order of the learned CIT(A) and AO being ex-parte, prayed that the assessee may be provided with one more opportunity before the learned CIT(A) to furnish the documentary evidences. He also further submitted that the assessee was contemplating for settling the case under VSV Scheme, 2024, and therefore due to inadvertence without any deliberate intention overlooked the hearing notices issued by the learned CIT(A). He further pleaded that the failure to respond was purely unintentional and prayed for one more opportunity before the learned CIT(A). Considering the prayer of the learned AR and in the interest of natural justice, we are of the view that the assessee shall be provided with one more opportunity to substantiate the grounds of appeal raised before the learned CIT(A) in support of his appeal. We therefore are inclined to provide final opportunity to the assessee for making the submissions before the learned CIT(A). We therefore condone the delay in filing the appeal before Ld CIT(A) and remand the matter back to the file of Ld CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. At the same time assessee is also cautioned toco-operate in the remand proceedings before the learned CIT(A) without seeking unnecessary adjournments failing which the appeal may be decided on merits in accordance with law, by the learned CIT(A) based on the material available on record.