RAMASAMY VEDARATHINAM, CHENNAI,CHENNAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, KRISHNAGIRI, KRISHNAGIRI

At the outset, the Ld.AR of the assessee brought to our notice that the Ld.CIT(A) has passed an ex parte order without going into the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee. Further, the Ld.AR submitted that the assessment order dated 13.03.2022 was passed by the AO pursuant to the revisional order u/s.263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act‘) passed by the Ld.PCIT, Coimbatore- 1, dated 22.02.2021. According to the Ld.AR, the assessee had participated in the assessment proceedings and produced documents called for by the AO. However, the AO has made addition of ₹7,16,600/- u/s.56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act and ₹25 lakhs u/s.69 of the Act. According to the Ld.AR, assessee tried to upload the reply to the Ld.CIT(A)’s notice dated 29.04.2025, but due to technical snag couldn’t upload the same which led to the passing of the impugned order; and therefore, prayed for one more opportunity before the Ld.CIT(A). Even though, the Ld.DR doesn’t want us to give further opportunity to the assessee, we are of the view that one more opportunity should be granted to the assessee. And the Ld.AR has undertaken to file all the relevant documents to support the grounds of appeal raised before the Ld.CIT(A) without fail. Considering the aforesaid facts, we set aside the impugned action of the Ld.CIT(A) and restore the appeal back to his file with a direction to adjudicate the grounds of appeal as per sub-section (6) of section 250 of the Act after hearing the assessee. Ramasamy Vedarathinam :: 3 ::

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.