ARSHAD MAHMOOD KHAN,LUCKNOW vs. ITO-2(1), LUCKNOW

PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA:A.M.

(A)
These three appeals have been filed by the assessee pertaining to assessment years 2013-14, 2015-16 and 2016-17 against impugned appellate orders dated
10/10/2024
(DIN
&
Order
No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1069595676(1), dated 10/10/2024 (DIN &
Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/ 2024-25/1069595816(1) and dated 10/10/2024
(DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1069596267(1) respectively of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)” for short].

Appellant by Shri Sandeep Saxena, Advocate
Shri Anurag Kumar Saxena, Advocate
Respondent by Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi,
Addl. CIT (D.R.)

I.T.A. Nos.721, 722 & 723/Lkw/2024
Assessment Year:2016-17
2

(B)
The facts of the case, in brief, are that in this case assessment orders all dated 22/03/2022 were passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 144 read with section 147 of the I. T. Act whereby the assessee’s income was assessed at Rs.80,93,335/- and Rs.1,75,94,441/- and Rs.3,09,16,952/- respectively against the returned income at nil for all the assessment years.
The order passed by the Assessing Officer were ex-parte orders qua the assessee. Vide impugned appellate orders all dated 10/10/2024, the assessee’s appeals were dismissed by the learned CIT(A). The orders of learned CIT(A) were also passed ex-parte qua the appellant assessee.

(B.1) At the time of hearing, learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer as well as the learned CIT(A), both passed their respective orders without providing reasonable opportunities to the assessee. He further submitted that the learned CIT(A) did not pass speaking order on merits of the various grounds of appeal. In view of these submissions, the learned Counsel for the assessee contended that the issues in dispute should be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer, with the direction to pass fresh assessment orders in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

(B.2) The learned Departmental Representative for Revenue expressed no objection to aforesaid submissions and contentions of learned Counsel for the assessee. He left the matter to the discretion of the Bench.

(C)
We have heard the rival parties and have gone through the material placed on record. We are of the considered opinion, in view of provisions of section 250(6) of the I. T. Act, that learned CIT(A) had statutory duty to pass speaking order on merits of the various grounds of appeal. In further consideration of the submissions made by the representatives of both sides, the orders of learned CIT(A) are set aside and issues in dispute regarding

I.T.A. Nos.721, 722 & 723/Lkw/2024
Assessment Year:2016-17
3

additions made in the assessment orders in all the three assessment years, are restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to pass de novo assessment orders in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

(D)
In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes.

(Order pronounced in the open court on 11/02/2025) . .
(KUL BHARAT) (ANADEE NATH MISSHRA)
Vice President Accountant Member

Dated:11/02/2025
*Singh

Copy of the order forwarded to :

Asstt.