SURYA PRATAP SINGH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 4(4), THANE

On the facts and under the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that no adjournment has been filed to the notices whereas the appellant has filed an adjournment to all the notices issued.

On the facts and under the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in recognizing the fact that insufficient time was given to the assessee at the time of assessment by the learned Assessing officer before finalizing the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act.

On the facts and under the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in making an addition of Rs. 73,84,072/- as estimated taxable income on ad-hoc basis and the reasons assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the facts and the provision of the law.

The appellant craves leaves to add, alter, amend, modify, or withdraw ground of appeal on or before the date of hearing.”

None appeared on behalf the assessee in spite of notice. Therefore, we decide to proceed ex-parte. 4. On a careful consideration of the order of the ld. CIT(A), we find that the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed for want of prosecution. We are of the considered view that the ld. CIT(A) ought to have given a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and should have decided the appeal on merits of the case, therefore, in the interest of justice and fairplay we restore the issues to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with a direction to decide the appeal afresh on merits of the case, after affording reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Court on 11th March, 2025 at Mumbai. (SAKTIJIT DEY)

अपीलाथ / The Appellant 2.  थ / The Respondent 3. संबंिधतआयकरआयु" / Concerned Pr. CIT 4. आयकरआयु" ) अपील ( / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय ितिनिध ,आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई /DR,ITAT, Mumbai, 6. गाड& फाई/ Guard file.