KAILASH BABURAO SURYAWANSHI,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(1), BANGALORE

Per Prakash Chand Yadav, Judicial Member

The present appeal of the assessee is arising out of the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) dated

filed application for condonation of delay, duly supported by way of affidavit. The main submissions vis-à-vis delay of 97 days is that the brother of the assessee was not well and ultimately died in the relevant period and hence assessee was not able to pursue the matter.
3. The ld. DR opposed the prayer for condonation of delay.
4. Considering the facts and reasons given by the assessee in his application for condonation of delay, we are of the view that it is a case of ordinate delay of 97 days, therefore we hereby condone the delay and proceed to decide the matter.
Facts of the case: -
5. The assessee is an individual and was running a car rental business at the relevant time. For the impugned assessment year the assessee has not filed any return of income. Thereafter, the case of the assessee was taken up for scrutiny u/s. 147 of the Act vide notice dated
2.4.2022. Thereafter, so many opportunities were given to the assessee, however, no one appeared from the side of assessee and hence the AO was left with no option other than framing of assessment u/s. 144 of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO inter alia made the following additions:-
(a) Addition of Rs.77,81,000 on account of sale of motor vehicle.
(b) Addition on account of payments made for credit card amounting to Rs.23,99,660. (c) Contract payments received from contract amounting to Rs.24,25,295. Page 3 of 4

(d) Addition of Rs.10,01,094 on account of rent of plant &
machinery.
6. Aggrieved with the order of the AO, assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). However, no one appeared before the ld.
CIT(A) and hence the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of the AO without dealing with merits of the contentions raised by the assessee by way of grounds of appeal before him.
7. When the matter came up for hearing before us, the assessee has appeared in person before us and informed that his employees have conducted a fraud with him and because of this fraud additions are made. The assessee further contended that assessee has also filed a complaint with Ramamurthy Nagar Police Station vis-à-vis fraud committed by his employees. At last the assessee prayed that an opportunity of being heard by provided before the AO so that the assessee can prove his case and bonafides.
8. The ld. DR relied on the orders of authorities below.
9. After considering the rival submissions and perusing the material available on record, we observe that the ld. CIT(A) has issued
4 notices to the assessee. However, the CIT(A) failed to point out as to whether any notice of hearing was actually served upon the assessee or not. Further, the ld. CIT(A) has also not dealt with the merits of the case in terms of provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. Further it is the settled position of law that CIT(A) is duty bound to dispose of the case on merits. Be that as it may be, we are of the view that for the Page 4 of 4

purpose of meaningful enquiries the matter requires fresh adjudication at the end of AO. Therefore, we restore the matter to the file of AO in the interest of justice for fresh adjudication after providing opportunity of hearing to the asse. It is also clarified that in case of further failure of the assessee, no further leniency would be given to the assessee.
10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Pronounced in the open court on this 27th day of January, 2025. ( LAXMI PRASAD SAHU )
JUDICIAL MEMBER

Bangalore,
Dated, the 27th January, 2025. /Desai S Murthy /

Copy to:

By order