KAMLESH KUMAR VERMA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, KANPUR

The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and was engaged in the business of manufacturing of packing machines and their trading during the year under consideration. A search & seizure operation u/s 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) for short, was carried out in Narendra Kumar Srivastava Group of cases on 15/02/2016. Simultaneously, a survey u/s 133A of the Act was also carried out in the case of the assessee. The assessee filed return of income declaring total income of Rs.12,82,630/-. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment and passed assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.19,61,320/- by making addition of Rs.6,78,690/-. Penalty of Rs.2,09,715/- was also imposed being 100% of the tax sought to be evaded u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee paid the entire tax liability on assessed income. However, on the issue of penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) amounting to Rs.2,09,715/-, the assessee went in appeal before the learned CIT(A), who has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground of non-prosecution from the assessee’s side. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

At the time of hearing before us, there was no representation from the assessee’s side. Under these circumstances, learned D.R. for Revenue was heard and the materials available on record were perused. From the order passed by learned CIT(A), it is apparent that learned CIT(A) has passed the ex-parte order qua the assessee without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant assessee. From the penalty order, it is evidenced that the assessee has cooperated with the Department during the course of assessment proceedings and paid entire tax liability on the assessed income. The learned CIT(A), while dismissing the appeal of the assessee, has mentioned that various notices for hearing u/s 250 of IT Act were issued but in compliance to the same, no response has been received from the appellant. He also mentioned that the appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. In view of the foregoing, we are of the considered view, in view of section 250(6) of the I. T. Act, that the learned CIT(A) has statutory duty to pass a speaking order on merits on the ground of appeal filed by the assessee. Having regard to the same, we set aside the impugned appellate order dated 19/12/2023 to the file of learned CIT(A) and we direct the learned CIT(A) to pass de novo order on merits in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.