ARIF AHMAD SIDDIQUI,LUCKNOW vs. ITO 5(1), LUCKNOW-NEW, LUCKNOW

2017-18 against impugned appellate order dated 29/11/2023 (DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1058297133(1) of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)” for short].

(A.1) This appeal has been filed by the assessee, beyond time limit prescribed under section 253(3) of IT Act. The assessee has submitted application, duly supported by affidavit, for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal pleading that the delay was unintentional and beyond the control of the assessee and has requested to admit the appeal for hearing. The learned Sr. Departmental Representative for Revenue did not express any objection to assessee’s application for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. In view of the foregoing, and in specific facts and circumstances of the present appeal before us, the delay in filing of this appeal is condoned; and the appeal is admitted for hearing.

(B) The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and filed his return of income for the year under consideration on 30/10/2017 declaring total income at Rs.8,316/-. In the case of the assessee, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment proceedings and passed assessment order dated 07/12/2019 under section 144 of the Act and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.59,43,278/- (rounded off to Rs.59,43,280/-) by making addition of Rs.15,54,094/- on account of net profit addition and Rs.43,97,500/- under section 69A of the I.T. Act. Being aggrieved with the additions made by the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal against the aforesaid impugned appellate order dated 29/11/2023 passed by learned CIT(A).

(C) At the time of hearing before the Tribunal, none was present on behalf of the assessee. In absence any representation from assessee’s side, learned Departmental Representative was heard and materials available on record were perused. Learned Departmental Representative relied on the assessment order and the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) and left the matter to the discretion of the Bench. On perusal of records, it is seen that the Assessing Officer as well as the learned CIT(A) have not given reasonable opportunity to the assessee. In view of the foregoing, the order of learned CIT(A) is set aside and issues in dispute are restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to pass de novo speaking order on merits of the case in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.