SHRI PRANAV KUMAR SINGH,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(3), , LUCKNOW

2012-13 against impugned appellate order dated 19/01/2024 (DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1059930563(1) of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)” for short].

(A.1) The facts of the case, in brief, are that in this case assessment order dated 13/12/2019 was passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 144/147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” for short) whereby the assessee’s total income was assessed at Rs.43,83,450/-. In the aforesaid assessment order, additions of Rs.34,72,178/- and 9,11,267/- were made. The order passed by the Assessing Officer was an ex-parte order qua the assessee. Vide impugned appellate order dated 19/01/2024, 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.

(B) At the time of hearing before us, there was no representation from the assessee’s side. In the absence of any representation from the assessee’s side, the learned D.R. for Revenue was heard. 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 Departmental Representative for Revenue 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. 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. (C) In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

(Order pronounced in the open court on 30/04/2025)