SRI BALAJI TYRES,KANGAYAM vs. ITO WARD 1(4), TIRUPPUR

Years: 2017-18 Sri Balaji Tyres, Income Tax Officer, No.245, Coimbatore Road, Ward-1(4), Kangayam, Tiruppur. Tamil Nadu-638 701. [PAN: ABAFS1418D] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee by : Ms.Sharren, Advocate. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue by : Ms.Anitha, Addl.CIT सुिवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 22.01.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 07.02.2025 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/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1069156812(1) dated 27.09.2024 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [herein after “CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Center[NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment years 2017-18. Through the aforesaid appeal the assesse has challenged order u/s 250 dated 27.09.2024 passed by NFAC, Delhi.

Page - 1 - of 4 2.0 At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for assessee informed that the Ld.CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order dismissing assessee’s appeal without giving him adequate opportunity of being heard. The Ld. Counsel informed that request for adjournment was made to file detailed evidences and submissions to contest the addition of Rs. 8,46,065/- made by the Ld. AO. A request was accordingly made to set aside the case to the Ld. CIT(A) for re-adjudication of this appeal after giving an opportunity of being heard. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee assure that full compliance will be made to the notices issued by the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld. DR contended that in this case order u/s 147 r.w.s 144B dated 25.09.2021 was passed. The reopening was done to examine cash deposits made by the assessee in his bank accounts during the demonetization period. The Ld. DR submitted that the explanation given by the assessee qua cash deposits was found to be unsatisfactory as a result of which the impugned addition was made. The order of the Ld.CIT(A) confirming the action of the Ld. AO was also stated to be on correct foundation.

3.0 We heard the rival submissions in the light of material available on records. We have noted that the Ld.CIT(A) and indeed given several opportunities to the assessee which remained un-complied. We have however also noted that the Ld.CIT(A) has merely dismissed the appeal Page - 2 - of 4 Ld.AO. A decision on merits even an ex-parte order was passed is sina qua non for an appellant authority like a CIT(A). Be that as it may be we are of the view that ends of justice would met if one last opportunity is given to the assessee to defend its case. Accordingly, the order of the Ld.CIT(A) is set aside and he is directed to readjudicate the appeal afresh after giving due opportunity of being heard and by passing a speaking order. The assessee shall make due compliance to the statutory notices and any non-compliance will be adversely viewed. It has been noted that the assessee has raised legal grounds challenging the jurisdiction of the Ld. AO u/s 147. As evident from para 2 on page 2 of the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the impugned ground was not raised before the Ld.CIT(A). While readjudicating the impugned appeal, he may consider adjudicating the issue if raised by the assessee before him. Further, the Ld.CIT(A) would be at liberty to call for any remand report from the Ld. AO if deemed necessary. Accordingly all the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.