ROBERT JEROME LEWIS ,NAVI MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE DELHI, DELHI

Per Anikesh Banerjee (JM) :

Instant appeal of the assessee was filed against the order of the National
Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC)*in short, ‘Ld.CIT(A)+ passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) for Assessment Year 2013-14, date of order 02/12/2024. The impugned order was emanated from the order of the Assessment Unit, Income-tax Department, order passed under section 147

2
ITYA No.699/Mum/2025
Shri Robert Jerome Lewis read with section 144 read with section 144B of the Act, date of order
16/05/2023. 2. We have heard the rival submissions and examined the documents available on record. During the hearing, the Ld. AR contended that the assessment was completed with an addition of Rs.1.20 crores under Section 68 of the Act, on account of unexplained income. Further, the assessee received interest income amounting to Rs.4,36,589/-, of which only Rs.3,86,990/- was duly explained.
Consequently, the balance interest income of Rs.49,599/- was added to the total income.During the assessment proceedings, the assessee submitted all relevant documents; however, the addition was confirmed. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A).
3. During the appellate proceedings, the assessee filed a written submission dated
04/03/2024. However, the Ld. CIT(A) passed the impugned appellate order without considering the said submission in its proper perspective. Consequently, the order was passed ex parte, without providing adequate justification.
Dissatisfied with the appellate order, the assessee has now sought relief. The Ld.
AR has prayed for the matter to be remanded to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication and the passing of a de novo appellate order.
4. The Ld. DR supported the orders of the revenue authorities and opposed the appeal.
5. Upon careful consideration, we find that the assessee had filed a written submission on 04/03/2024. However, without duly considering the same, the Ld.
CIT(A) proceeded to pass an ex parte order, thereby confirming the addition. We

3
ITYA No.699/Mum/2025
Shri Robert Jerome Lewis observe that the assessee was denied a reasonable opportunity to present its case. In the interest of natural justice, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication and the passing of a reasoned and speaking order.We refrain from expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, as doing so would prejudice the reassessment of the appeal. It is directed that the assessee be afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard before the passing of the set-aside appellate order. Furthermore, if any new documents or evidence are sought to be filed, the same shall be duly considered by the Ld. CIT(A) before rendering the final decision.
6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.699/Mum/2025 is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on 28th day of March2025. (B.R. BASKARAN)
JUDICIAL MEMBER
Mumbai,दिन ांक/Dated: 28/03/2025
Pavanan
Copy of the Order forwarded to:

BY ORDER,
////

(Asstt.