RAJENDRA ANNASAHEB MASUTE HUF,KOLHAPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2021-22 is directed against the order dated 12.03.2025 framed by National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (ld.CIT(A)/NFAC) (Exemption) emanating out of Assessment Order dated 24.12.2022 passed u/s.144 r.w.s.144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).

When the case called for, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. Even on the previous date of hearing fixed on 12.06.2025, 24.07.2025 and 26.08.2025 neither the assessee nor any Authorised Representative represented the assessee. We therefore proceed to adjudicate the appeal with the assistance of ld. Departmental Representative and material available on record.

Ld. Departmental Representative supported the orders of the lower authorities.

We have heard the ld. DR and perused the record placed before us. We note that the assessment year in the case of assessee HUF for A.Y. 2021-22 has been framed u/s.144 r.w.s.144B of the Act as Best Judgment assessment and addition of Rs.54,91,038/- has been made against the Nil income declared in the income-tax return filed on 31.12.2021. Assessee has preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A) but the assessee failed to respond to the notices of hearing resulting into dismissal of appeal. Before ld.CIT(A) also, assessee has not responded even though six opportunities were granted. Ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the assessee’s appeal placing reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of M/s. Chemipol Vs. Union of India in Excise Appeal No.62 of 2009. We however considering the fact that assessee has declared income from Agriculture showing gross receipts at Rs.54,91,038/- and claimed expenditure of Rs.25,04,475/-. Ld. AO has not considered the expenditure incurred for agricultural operations and has also not accepted the gross agricultural receipts and treated it to be unexplained income u/s.69 of the Act. In the statement of facts filed before ld.CIT(A), it has been stated that due to medical reasons Karta of HUF could not file submissions before ld.AO and even before ld.CIT(A). Considering the facts of the case and also in the larger interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to grant one more opportunity to the assessee. We therefore without dwelling into merits of the case, remit all the issues raised in the instant appeal to the file of ld.CIT(A). Needless to mention that in the set aside proceedings ld.CIT(A) shall afford reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Impugned order is set aside and effective grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.