RAJINDER KUMAR,ALLAHABAD ROAD, FAIZABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, FAIZABAD

O R D E R

PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.

: This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) dated 17.02.2025 pertaining to the assessment year 2018-19. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: -

1. That the order of the Ld. CIT(A) Is against law and facts of the case on the file.

2. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 10,58,720/- made by the AO under Section 69C of Income Tax Act in respect of purchases made by the assessee from M/s. Mideast Integrated Steel Ltd.

3. That the Ld. CIT(A) gravely erred in not allowing proper opportunity of being heard.

4. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the assessment wrongly reopened under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the AO.

Page 2 of 4 5. That the appellant begs to add or amend any ground of appeal before the appeal Is heard and disposed off.”

2. Apropos to the grounds of appeal, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, contended that the impugned order has been passed without giving effective opportunity of being heard to the assessee. He, therefore, prayed that the matter may be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

3. On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative for the Revenue opposed the submissions and contended that the assessee was granted multiple opportunities but failed to avail the same. He further submitted that, in the absence of any supporting evidence, the authorities below were justified in making the impugned additions.

4. Heard the Ld. Representatives of the parties and perused the materials available on records. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed his return of income on 11.10.2018 for A.Y. 2018- 19, declaring total income of Rs.5,03,790/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) received information regarding alleged fake purchases and fraud qua Input Tax Credit (ITC). The assessee had made purchases from one, M/s. Mideast Integrated Steels Ltd income which was found to be indulging into giving fake purchases and making false ITC claims. Therefore, the Assessing Officer treating the purchase of Rs.10,58,720/- from the said party as bogus made the impugned addition. The dispute in the present case is with regard to the addition made on this account. Before the Assessing Officer, the assessee had filed certain submissions; however, in the appeal proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A), no one appeared on behalf of the assessee. Consequently, the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is ex parte to the assessee. Although the Ld. CIT(A) has observed in the order that Page 3 of 4 several notices were issued to the assessee, the order does not specify the dates on which such notices were issued. Thus, he dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of non- prosecution. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed the present appeal before this Tribunal. Ld. Counsel for the assessee has prayed that the assessee may be given one more opportunity to effectively represent his case before the First Appellate Authority. He contended that the denial of proper opportunity tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice. He further, reiterated the brief synopsis as filed on 22.05.2025. It is noticed that during the appellate proceeding, three notices were issued by the Ld. CIT(A) on 01.05.2023, 13.01.2025, and 23.01.2025. It is also noted that the assessee had sought adjournment before the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, I deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to sub-serve the principles of natural justice and to afford the assessee one final opportunity to represent his case before the First Appellate Authority. Grounds raised in this appeal are allowed for statistical purpose.

5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 27/11/2025.