INCOME-TAX OFFICER, KHANNA vs. RUPINDER SINGH, MACHHIWARA

At the outset, the Registry has pointed out that there is a delay in filing the present appeal. In response, the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted an application seeking condonation of delay, which has been taken on record.

The Ld. DR opposed the condonation of delay.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the condonation application placed on record. Upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are satisfied that the assessee was prevented

In the present appeal Assessee has raised the following grounds:

Brief facts of the case are that the assessment was framed by the Assessing Officer under section 147 read with section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 making addition on account of unexplained expenditure under section 69C of the Act. The assessment was completed ex parte on account of alleged non-compliance by the assessee.

Against the order of the AO the assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) and raised various legal as well as factual grounds challenging the reopening under section 148, validity of sanction under section 151, lack of independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer, non-providing of adequate opportunity, and also challenged the addition made under section 69C of the Act.

1 During the appellate proceedings, the assessee filed detailed written submissions along with supporting evidences and contended before the Ld. CIT(A) that the assessment had been completed without granting effective opportunity of being heard and that the transactions in question did not pertain to the assessee individually but allegedly related to a partnership concern. The assessee also challenged the very assumption of juri iction under section 147/148 of the Act and relied upon various judicial precedents in support of the contentions raised before the Ld. CIT(A).

2 The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the assessment order, submissions of the assessee and the material available on record, observed that the assessee had not been able to furnish the relevant documents before the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings and certain documents/evidences were being produced before the appellate authority. The Ld. CIT(A) further observed that the matter required fresh examination at the end of the Assessing Officer in the interest of justice. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to frame the assessment afresh after carrying out necessary verification and after affording due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

Against the order of the CIT(A) the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal.

Before us, the Ld. DR relied upon the assessment order and submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in restoring the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer and ought to have adjudicated the issues on merits.

The Ld. AR submitted that the assessment was framed ex parte under section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act without granting adequate and effective opportunity to the assessee. It was contended that before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee had raised various legal as well as factual grounds challenging the validity of reopening and the addition made under section 69C of the Act and had also furnished supporting evidences.

1 The Ld. AR further submitted that since the relevant documents were not examined by the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A), in the interest of justice and principles of natural justice, rightly restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after providing due opportunity to the assessee. It was argued that no final relief had been granted by the Ld. CIT(A) and therefore no prejudice had been caused to the Revenue. The Ld. AR accordingly prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be upheld and the appeal of the Revenue be dismissed.

We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the material available on record including the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). We find that the Ld. CIT(A), after taking into consideration the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, has restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication primarily on the ground that the assessee could not place the relevant evidences before the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings and that proper verification of the documents and claims of the assessee was necessary. We further note that the Ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated the issues finally in favour of the assessee but has merely restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for proper examination in accordance with law.

1 In our considered opinion, no prejudice is caused to the Revenue by the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A), inasmuch as the entire matter now stands restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for denovo adjudication. We do not find any infirmity or error in the approach adopted by the Ld. CIT(A) while remanding the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer in the interest of substantial justice. The directions issued by the Ld. CIT(A) are fair and reasonable and call for no interference from our side.

2 Accordingly, we uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A) remanding the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer shall examine all the issues raised by the assessee, including the legal grounds challenging the validity of reopening proceedings as well as the issues on merits, and thereafter decide the matter afresh in accordance with law after providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to extend full cooperation and furnish all requisite evidences and explanations before the Assessing Officer.

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 14/05/2026 मनोज कुमार अ"वाल लिलत कुमार (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) (LALIET KUMAR) लेखा सद"/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER "ाियक सद" /JUDICIAL MEMBER AG आदेश की "ितिलिप अ"ेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ"/ The Appellant

""थ"/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयु"/ CIT 4. आयकर आयु" (अपील)/ The CIT(A) 5. िवभागीय "ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, च"ीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. गाड" फाईल/ Guard File