HARSH VIDYARTHI,BHOPAL vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CHENNAI

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ’सी’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI श्री यस यस विश्वनेत्र रवि, न्यावयक सदस्य एवं श्री अविताभ शुक्ला, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI SS VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.326/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2015-16 Harsh Vidyarthi, Assistant Commissioner of Flat No.3A Rosemere Third Floor, Income Tax, No.18 Harrington Road, Chetpet, Central Circle-2(3), Chennai-600 031. Chennai. [PAN: ABWPV4268J] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee by : Shri Deepak Arora, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue by : Ms.Anitha, Addl.CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 02.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 11.06.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMITABH SHUKLA, A.M :

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order bearing DIN & Order No.ITBA / APL / S / 250 / 2024-25 / 1071572962(1) dated 26.12.2024 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [herein after “CIT(A), Chennai, for the assessment year 2015-16. The reference to the word “Act” in this order hereinafter shall mean the Income Tax Act, 1961 as amended from time to time.

2.0 At the outset the Ld.Counsel for the assesse informed that the Ld.CIT(A) has confirmed the ex parte order of the Ld.AO without giving due opportunity of being heard. It was contended that the assessee has all the information in its possession now to defend the additions. Accordingly, request was made to send the file to the Ld.CIT(A) for readjudication.

3.0 Per contra, the Ld.DR placed reliance upon the order of lower authorites.

4.0 We have considered the rival’s submissions in the light of the facts of case and material available on records. Grounds of appeal raised by the assesse allude that the assesse has challenged the action of the AO and the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.AO had initiated action u/s 148 and had proceeded to complete an ex-parte assessment making total addition of Rs.1,16,05,829/- on different issues. It has been recorded by the Ld.AO that the assessee did not file any return of income in response to notice u/s 148 nor any details within the given time. We have also noted that the Ld.CIT(A) has merely confirmed the Ld.AO’s order in view of assessee’s non-compliance before the Ld.AO and that he has not given any findings on the merits of the case. The appellant has also failed to provide any concrete written submissions to contradict the findings of the Page - 2 - of 4. AO before the Ld.CIT(A). Neither had the assessee provided any details to the Ld.AO. Be that as it may be, we are of the view that ends of justice would be met if the assesse is given one last opportunity to present its case and file supporting evidences, before the Ld. AO. Accordingly, the order of lower authorities is set aside and the Ld.AO is directed to adjudicate the matter de novo. The decision to remit it back to the Ld. AO is taken in view of the fact that an Assessing Officer is the fulcrum of assessment proceedings. He possess the first right and responsibilities to examine facts of a case before arriving at his decision. We have noted with respectful deference the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of TIN box 249 ITR 216 on the subject matter. The Ld. AO shall give opportunities of being heard to the assesse and it shall be bounden upon the assesse to comply with the notices issued by the Ld. AO. Any non- compliance on the part of the assesse can be adversely viewed. The assessee is at liberty to produce all the evidences including the reported bank statements deemed relevant in support of its claims before the Ld. AO during the readjudication proceedings. Accordingly, all the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are therefore allowed for statistical purposes.