RITU SARAF,LUDHIANA vs. ITO WARD 2(2), RISHI NAGAR LUDHIANA

Grounds of appeal filed by the Assessee is reproduced as under:

We find that the matter was fixed for hearing for today, i.e., 03.03.2025. Date of hearing was duly intimated to the Assessee through RPAD Notice issued. None appeared on behalf of the Assessee. However, an adjournment application was received on behalf of the Assessee. We have gone through the record and find that the matter may be proceeded with even in the absence of the Assessee. We have heard the ld. DR and we proceed to pass this order.

At the very outset, ld. DR pointed out that the assessment in this case was completed by the Assessing Officer u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). The Assessee submitted before the CIT(A) that although she has submitted all the required details before the Assessing Officer but the Assessing Officer did not consider her submissions and passed an ex-parte order without taking into consideration the details and audited account filed by her. The ld. CIT(A) instead of asking for remand report from the Assessing Officer

We are of this considered view that the submissions filed by the Assessee before the Assessing Officer have not been taken into consideration either by the A.O. or by the ld. CIT(A), therefore, keeping in view the element of natural justice, we are of this view that the matter should be remanded back to the Assessing Officer for passing an order de novo, in accordance with law, on affording due and adequate opportunity of hearing to the Assessee. The Assessee, no doubt, shall cooperate in the fresh proceedings before the A.O. All pleas available under the law shall remain so available to the assessee. Ordered accordingly.

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.