BALASAHEB BHAGWAT HORANE,SOLAPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2, PANDHARPUR, PANDHARPUR

At the outset Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that without providing proper opportunity of hearing Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the impugned addition made by Ld. Assessing Officer (AO). He submitted that inspite of adjournment application filed on 26.06.2025 seeking 7 days for furnishing the details, Ld. CIT(A) proceeded to pass the impugned order. He further submitted that one more opportunity may please be granted and the issues on merits may please be remitted back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for necessary adjudication. Similar submissions were made against the order of Ld. CIT(A) confirming the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.

On the other hand Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) supported the order of Ld. CIT(A).

I have heard rival contentions and perused the record placed before me. I observe that the assessee is an individual and declared income of Rs. 8,37,496/- in the return of income for A.Y. 2013-14 furnished on 03.08.2013. Subsequently based on the information received by the Assessing Officer (AO), assessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act were carried out after serving valid statutory notice on the assessee but thereafter assessee failed to respond to the notice issued by Ld. AO which are falling during the Covid-19 pandemic restrictions period. Ld. AO concluded the proceedings making & 1808/PUN/2025 addition of Rs. 33,60,000/- and also levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act at Rs. 10,21,503/- Aggrieved with both the orders assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A). During the appellate proceedings on the quantum issues, Ld. CIT(A) issued first notice for hearing fixed on 01.09.2023 but there was no response. In the second notice fixing the date on 21.10.2024 assessee sought adjournment but did not file any other submissions. Third notice of hearing was fixed on 27.06.2025 but again assessee requested for adjournment but Ld. CIT(A) did not grant the same and passed the impugned order.

It is evident that assessee failed to furnish details on the first two days of hearing in spite of the fact that appeal has been filed by the assessee and that too with the delay of 22 months. Ld. CIT(A) fairly condoned the delay but then observing that assessee is not responding to the first two notices has finally passed the impugned order. Before me the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has prayed that the assessee has all necessary details which are placed in the Paper Book from Page No. 06 to 26 and if one more opportunity is granted then the assessee can submit all the details before Ld. CIT(A).

Considering the given facts and circumstances of the case and in the larger interest of justice and being fair to both the parties I deem it proper to afford one more opportunity to the assessee and restore all the issues raised in the instant appeal against the quantum addition as well as levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for afresh adjudication and also to consider the details & 1808/PUN/2025 filed by the assessee and if needed then should call for a remand report from the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO). Needless to mention that proper opportunity of hearing shall be given to the assessee. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. The impugned orders are set aside and effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee on merits in are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as per terms indicated herein above