NARENDRA SINGH SHAKYA,BUDAUN vs. ITO-2(3), BADAUN-1

2018-19 against impugned appellate order dated 08/05/2024 (DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1064709557(1) of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)” for short].

(B) This appeal has been filed by the assessee, beyond time limit prescribed under section 253(3) of IT Act. As per noting of Registry, this appeal is time barred by 6 days. The assessee has submitted application for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal, duly supported by affidavit, on medical ground; 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.

(C) The facts of the case, in brief, are that in this case the assessee filed his return of income on 02/09/2018 declaring nil income. The assessment order dated 02/04/2021 was passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 144 read with section 143(3A) and 143(3B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” for short) whereby the assessee’s income was assessed at Rs.7,55,220/-. The order passed by the Assessing Officer was an ex-parte order qua the assessee. Being aggrieved, the assessee went in appeal before the learned CIT(A). Vide impugned appellate order dated 08/05/2024, the assessee’s appeal was dismissed by the learned CIT(A). The order of learned CIT(A) was passed ex-parte qua the appellant assessee. At the time of hearing, the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee submitted that the assessee did not get reasonable opportunity during assessment proceedings in the office of the Assessing Officer, and during the appellate proceedings in the office of learned CIT(A). He further submitted that issues in dispute regarding additions made in the assessment order be restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer, with the direction to pass de novo assessment order. The learned Departmental Representative for Revenue expressed no objection to this.

(D) I have heard both sides. I have perused the materials 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 and the assessee’s submissions on merits could not be considered either by the Assessing Officer or by the learned CIT(A). Further, reasonable opportunity of being heard was not provided to the assessee. In view of the foregoing, the order of learned CIT(A) is set aside and the issues in dispute regarding additions made in assessment order are 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.