AVANTI HYDRO LLP,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, NCC-11(1), CHENNAI

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 31.10.2025 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi for the assessment year 2022-23.

The assessee raised 5 grounds of appeal amongst which, the only issue emanates for our consideration as to whether the ld. CIT(A) is justified in enhancing assessing income by violating principles of natural justice in the facts and circumstances of the case.

The ld. AR Shri B. Ramakrishnan, F.C.A. submits that the assessment was finalized by making addition under section 68 of the income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] on account of unexplained unsettled loans vide assessment order dated 20.03.2024 passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act. Not satisfied by the assessment order, the assessee challenged the same before the ld. CIT(A) and vehemently submits that the ld. CIT(A) enhanced the assessment without giving proper opportunity to the assessee. He drew our attention to page 19 of the appeal memo and submits that the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi issued hearing notice dated 28.10.2025 seeking explanation from the assessee to furnish on or before 30.10.2025. Further, he referred to page 22 of the impugned order and submits that the ld. CIT(A) has given only two days time to file explanation, which is not reasonable. He vehemently argued that the ld. CIT(A) passed order on 31.10.2025 in haste making enhancement of assessment by violating the procedure under law. He submits that the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is bad in law without providing adequate opportunity of being heard, in violation of principles of natural justice. The ld. AR submits that the assessee filed additional evidence before the ld. CIT(A) and no remand report filed by the Assessing Officer inspite of reminders. He argued that cost may be imposed on the ld. CIT(A) as the enhancement made without following the due procedure and non filing of remand report by the Assessing Officer.

The ld. DR Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT did not dispute about granting sufficient time, but, on enhancement made by the ld. CIT(A), she drew our attention to the impugned order and argued that reasonable time was given to the assessee, but, however, no explanation was furnished to the first appellate authority.

Having heard both the parties and perused the material available on record, as rightly pointed out by the ld. AR, we note that there was no sufficient time afforded to the assessee on enhancement of assessment, which, the ld. CIT(A) violated the requirement of law. Further, the ld. CIT(A) gave only 2 days time, which is clear from the hearing notice dated 28.10.2025, wherein, it is clearly mentioned time of 2 days is given to offer explanation in respect of enhancement of assessment. In our opinion, offering 2 days time is not reasonable as rightly pointed out by the ld. AR. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of the ld. AR and the ld. DR, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The Assessing Officer shall afford reasonable opportunity to the assessee and pass order accordingly. The assessee is at liberty file evidence, if any, in support of its claim. Thus, the ground raise by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 13th November, 2025 at Chennai.