ROHIT PREM CHHABRA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX DEPT., MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘D’ BENCH
MUMBAI

BEFORE: SHRI BR BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
&

SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
Rohit Prem Chhabra
A-415 Vashi Plaza,
Sector-17, Vashi,
Navi Mumbai-
400703. Vs. Assessment Unit,
NFAC ward 28(2)(1),
Mumbai.

PAN/GIR No. ADLPC7338R
(Appellant)
..
(Respondent)

Assessee by Ms. Aishwarya
Revenue by Shri. R.R Makwana, Addl.
CIT
Date of Hearing
02/01/2025
Date of Pronouncement
06/01/2025

आदेश / O R D E R

PER SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (J.M): 1. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated 20.09.2024 passed in Appeal no. NFAC/2017- 18/10297102 by the Ld. Commissioner of Income– tax(Appeals)/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”] u/s. 250 of the Income- Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "Act"] for the Assessment year [A.Y.] 2018-19, wherein learned CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s appeal ex-parte. Rohit Prem Chhabra

2
2. Briefly stating, assessee did not file any return of income for A.Y. 2018-19. However, on the basis of the information available in the system, learned assessing officer passed assessment order u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act and assessed total income at Rs. 1,78,40,490/- (consideration of Rs. 1,78,20,000/- on sale of immovable property and Rs.
20,490/- as interest income). Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before learned CIT(A), who dismissed assessee’s appeal ex-parte.
3. Appellant assessee has filed this appeal on the ground that learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the aforesaid additions ex-parte in violation of the principles of natural justice.
4. The adjournment application moved on behalf of the assessee was rejected. We have perused the records and heard learned representatives for the parties.
5. Learned AR has submitted that the impugned order has been passed ex-parte by learned CIT(A) in violation of the principles of natural justice without affording an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. prayed to set aside the impugned order.
6. Learned DR has supported the impugned order.
7. We notice that learned CIT(A) issued notices to the appellant assessee for the hearing on three different occasions, however, the appellant assessee did not respond thereof. Learned CIT(A) was thus compelled to pass ex-parte impugned order in such circumstances. However, it is further noticed that learned
CIT(A) has passed ex-parte impugned order without any substantial discussion on the merits of the case, whereas
Rohit Prem Chhabra

3
learned CIT(A) was expected to state the points for determination, decision thereon and the reasons for the decision as provided u/s. 250(6) of the Act. In the circumstances and in the interest of justice and fair play, we deem it just and appropriate to afford opportunity to the assessee and restore the matter back to the file of learned
CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. We further direct the assessee to be diligent and cooperative in attending the hearings and making submissions before the learned CIT(A) for the expeditious and effective disposal. Assessee should refrain from seeking any adjournment but for compelling and unavoidable circumstances. Needless to say that learned
CIT(A) shall ensure the observance of the principles of natural justice. It is made clear that we have not made any observation in respect of the merits of the case. The appeal is liable to be allowed accordingly.
8. In the result, the appeal is allowed in above terms for statistical purpose. Impugned order dated 20.09.2024 is set aside.
Order pronounced on 06.01.2025. (BR BASKARAN) (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
JUDICIAL MEMBER
Mumbai; Dated 06/01/2025
Anandi Nambi, Steno
Copy of the Order forwarded to:

BY ORDER,

(Asstt.