NANDINI BANDYOPADHYAY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-25(1), KOLKATA

PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 1. This appeal arises from order dated 24.04.2025, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”) by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (hereafter “the Ld. CIT(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi. 1.1 Right at the outset, the Ld. AR pointed out that due to a communication gap between the assessee and her tax consultant, no worthwhile compliance could be made either at the level of Ld. AO or at the level of Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. AR mentioned that the assessee was a senior citizen and was not conversant with taxation laws and hence was wholly

2
Nandini Bandyopadhyay depend on the tax consultant. The Ld. AR requested for one more chance to present the facts before the Ld. AO so that the correct taxable income could be determined.
1.2
The Ld. DR relied on the orders of authorities below.
2. We have carefully considered the documents before us and have heard the Ld. AR/DR. It is felt that in the interests of substantive justice, the impugned order deserves to be set aside as it is passed in an exparte manner, and the matter is deemed fit to be remanded back to the file of Ld.
AO for fresh assessment.
3. In result, this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 27.08.2025 (George Mathan) (Sanjay Awasthi)
Judicial Member Accountant Member
Dated: 27.08.2025
AK, Sr. P.S.

3
Nandini Bandyopadhyay

Copy of the order forwarded to:
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. Pr. CIT
4. CIT(A)

////
By order