MUKESH KUMAR JAISWAL,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(2), LUCKNOW

2017-18 against impugned appellate order dated 28/09/2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)” for short].

(B) The appeal filed by the assessee is beyond the time limit prescribed u/s 253(3) of the I. T. Act. An application dated 30/12/2024 was filed by the assessee requesting for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal, wherein detailed description of the facts and circumstances, which caused the delay in filing of the appeal has been stated. At the time of hearing, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that reasons for late filing of the appeal were really beyond the control of the assessee; and requested that the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned. The learned D.R. for Revenue expressed no objection to condonation of delay or to admitting the appeal for hearing on merits. In view of the foregoing,, the delay in filing of the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for decision on merits.

(C) The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee’s business is trading of liquor. The assessee filed his return of income on 30/10/2017 declaring total income of Rs.9,60,000/-. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had deposited Rs.53,98,500/- cash in bank accounts during the demonetization period. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 144 of the Act and assessed total income of the assessee at Rs.82,29,348/- after making an addition of Rs.53,98,500/- under section 68 of the I. T. Act. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A). Vide impugned appellate order dated 28/09/2024, the assessee’s appeal was dismissed by the learned CIT(A). The order of learned CIT(A) was also passed ex-parte qua the appellant assessee.

(D) We have heard the rival parties and have gone through the material placed on record. On perusal of records, it is seen that the assessment order as well as the impugned appellate order of the learned CIT(A), both were passed ex-parte qua the appellant assessee. Further, the assessee was not given reasonable opportunity. In response to a query from Bench, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issues in dispute regarding aforesaid additions may be restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to pass de novo assessment order in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Learned Departmental Representative for Revenue expressed no objection. In view of the foregoing, the order of learned CIT(A) is set aside and restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to pass de novo assessment order in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.