NARSINGA RAO ALETI,NALGONDA vs. ITO., WARD-1, SURYAPET

PER RAVISH SOOD, JM:

The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals),
National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC), Delhi, dated 07/08/2025, which in turn arises from the order passed by the Assessing Officer
(for short, “A.O.”) under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act,

2
1961 (for short “the Act”) dated 23/06/2025 for A.Y. 2015-16. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us:
“1. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend OR modify the above grounds of appeal either before OR at the time of hearing of the appeal, if it is considered necessary.
2. The learned Commissioner erred in assuming that the assessee is liable to pay advance tax, therefore, further erred in assuming that the appeal is not liable to be admitted.
3. The learned Commissioner ought to have appreciated that the notice u/s 148 is issued on 27.04.2022, beyond a period of three years in violation of provisions of section 149 of the IT Act, therefore, the order u/s 147 r.w.s 144 is an invalid order and consequently all the proceedings are also to be held as invalid including 271(1)(c) proceedings levying penalty of Rs.10,50,600/-.
4. The learned Commissioner ought to have appreciated that the Honorable ITAT in respect of quantum addition restored the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer in their order in ITA No.1265/Hyd/2024, dt:
01.01.2025, therefore, the learned Commissioner erred in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer levying penalty of Rs. 10,50,600/- as there are no proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are pending in view of the facts and circumstances of the case.
5. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax 5 (Appeals) is against the law, weight of evidence and probabilities of case.
6. The learned Commissioner posted the case fixing the date of hearing on 12.08.2025, however, erred in dismissing the appeal on 07.08.2025, without giving an opportunity of hearing and also in violation of principles of natural justice.”

4
Representative (for short “Ld. AR”) for the assessee at the threshold of the hearing of the appeal, submitted that the assessee had remained divested of a sufficient opportunity of being heard and defend his case before the CIT(A). Elaborating on his contention, the Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) on the last occasion vide his notice issued under section 250 of the Act, dated 05/08/2025 had called upon the assessee to furnish his submissions on or before
12/08/2025, Page 21 of APB. The Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A)

5
12/08/2025 had disposed of the appeal vide his order, dated
07/08/2025. The Ld. AR to buttress his aforesaid claim had drawn our attention to the order of the CIT(A) and the letter dated
05/08/2025. The Ld. AR submitted that as the assessee had been divested of a sufficient opportunity to put forth an explanation regarding the admission of his appeal as per the “proviso” to section 249(4)(b) of the Act before the CIT(A) who had dismissed the appeal during the period that was made available to the assessee to furnish the requisite details/reply, therefore, the order of the first appellate authority cannot be sustained. Also, the Ld. AR submitted that as the ex-parte order passed by the AO under section 147 r.w.s
144 r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 15/02/2024 had been set aside by the Tribunal vide its order passed in ITA No. 1265/Hyd/2024, dated
01/01/2025 to the file of the AO for re-adjudication, therefore, in all fairness and in the interest of justice the present matter may also on the same terms be set aside to the file of the AO.
10. Per contra, Sri V. Ravish Bhatt, the Learned Departmental
Representative (for short “Ld. DR”) relied upon the orders of the authorities below.

6
12. At the threshold, we may herein observe that it is a matter of fact borne from the record that though the CIT(A) vide notice issued under section 250 of the Act, dated 05/08/2025 had called upon the assessee to furnish his written submissions on or before
12/08/2025, but in the meantime had for the reasons best known to him disposed of the appeal vide his order dated 07/08/2025. We are unable to comprehend that on one hand the CIT(A) had called upon the assessee to furnish his submissions up to 12/08/2025, but surprisingly before lapse of the said period had dismissed the appeal vide his order dated 07/08/2025. We are unable to persuade ourselves to concur with the manner in which the CIT(A) had disposed of the appeal despite the fact that the time period made available by him to the assessee had yet not expired.
13. As observed herein above, the quantum assessment order passed by the AO under section 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 15/02/2024 had been set aside by the Tribunal vide its order passed in ITA No. 1265/Hyd/2024, dated 01/01/2025 to the file of the AO for de novo adjudication after providing an opportunity of 7
S (मधुसूदन सावͫडया)
(MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA)
लेखासदèय/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (रवीश सूद)
(RAVISH SOOD)
ÛयाǓयकसदèय/JUDICIAL MEMBER d/- Hyderabad, dated 31.10.2025. OKK/sps
आदेशकȧĤǓतͧलͪपअĒेͪषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to:-

8
आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER

Sr. Private Secretary
ITAT, Hyderabad.