PRASANTA KUMAR SAHOO,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , NATIONAL FACELESS CENTRE

The learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal has erred in law and in facts by adding Rs. 6,43,000/- credited in the books of accounts without giving an opportunity of being heard and added 60% of the amount w/s. 115BBE.

The learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal has erred in law and in facts by disallowing the expenses 20% of Rs. 4,61,973/- while the expenses were incurred exclusively & necessarily for the purpose of the business. The expenses should be fully allowed.

The learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal has erred in law and in facts by disallowing deduction under chapter VI A of Rs. 1,15,180/- The assessee submits that treatment is not justified and against the facts and circumstances of the case. The assessee could not give reply to the notices by the Ld. AO due to non-availability of tax consultant, due to pandemic situation. Prasanta Kumar Sahoo 2

The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend and/or delete in all the foregoing grounds of appeal.”

Rival submissions of both the parties have been heard and record perused. At the outset of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submits that assessing officer as well as ld. CIT(A) passed the ex- parte order. The assessee was not allowed reasonable and fair opportunity to contest the various issues during assessment. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that substantial right of the assessee are involved in the present appeal. Therefore, the assessee may be allowed one more opportunity to contest before assessing officer. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that he undertakes on behalf of the assessee to be more vigilant in future in not making any default before lower authorities in making timely compliance. 3. On the other hand, learned senior departmental representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the revenue submits that assessee is habitual defaulter in not making timely compliance before the lower authorities. The assessee has not disclosed any reason for non-appearance before lower authorities. 4. In the rejoinder submission, the ld. AR of the assessee submits that assessment was completed during sever Covid Pandemic and entire period is covered by such pandemic period. Though, appeal was filed before ld. CIT(A) in 2021, however, notice for hearing of appeal under section 250 was issued only in the month of November/December, 2024 which were inadvertently missed by assessee. Now, he has undertaken on behalf of the assessee in more vigilant in future. Prasanta Kumar Sahoo 3

I have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have gone through the orders of lower authorities carefully. Considering the fact that assessing officer as well as ld. CIT(A) passed ex-parte order for the want of submission. Keeping in view, the principle of natural justice, the matter is restored back to the file of assessing officer to pass the assessment order afresh. Needless to direct that before passing the assessment order, the assessing officer shall allow fair and reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to be more vigilant in future in making timely compliance as well as the relevant evidence to substantiate various grounds of appeal. In the result, grounds of appeal of assessee are allowed for statistical purpose. 6. In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order was pronounced in the open Court on 06/08/2025. PAWAN SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER