SYED SALAHUDDIN,CHENNAI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, NON-CORP, WARD 3(3), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai dated 29.10.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2016-17.

The Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that the assessee had filed a request for adjournment on 23.10.2025, which the CIT(A) had not taken note of and proceeded to pass the appellate order without providing any opportunity to the assessee to file written submissions or furnish documentary evidences. The Ld. AR further submitted that the CIT(A) passed the appellate order based on the draft valuation report, as the assessee had not filed any objections to the said draft valuation. The Ld. AR contended that the assessee was under a bona fide belief that the CIT(A) would pass the order only after receipt of the final valuation report, against which the assessee would be given an opportunity to file objections. Therefore, the Ld. AR prayed that, in the interest of justice and equity, one more opportunity may be granted to the assessee to properly represent his case before the CIT(A).

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We note that the assessee has filed additional grounds raising a legal issue that the order passed by the AO u/s.143(3) of the Act is invalid on the ground that the notice issued u/s.143(2) of the Act was unsigned. However, at the time of hearing, the Ld. AR did not press the said legal ground and therefore the same is dismissed as not pressed. The Ld. AR only contended that the assessee was under a bona fide belief that the CIT(A) would pass the appellate order only after receipt of the final valuation report, against which the assessee would be given an opportunity to file objections. However, the CIT(A) proceeded to pass the appellate order observing that the assessee had not filed any objections to the draft valuation report. Considering the submissions of the Ld. AR and in the interest of justice and fair play, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order of the CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) shall afford adequate opportunity to 4 -: the assessee to file written submissions and documentary evidences and thereafter decide the issue in accordance with law. The assessee is directed to co-operate with the Revenue and shall not seek unnecessary adjournment. It is ordered accordingly.