CARNET ELIAS FERNANDES,BHOPAL vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI, NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI

The captioned three appeals have been filed by assessee against three separate orders of first-appeal, all dated 27.03.2024 and all passed by learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“CIT(A)”], which in turn arise out of respective three assessment-orders, all dated 19.03.2022 and all passed by National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi [“AO”] u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Page 1 of 4

Ld. Representatives of both sides instantly agreed that the facts and issues involved in all three appeals are similar, therefore these appeals can be decided on the basis of facts of AY 2013-14.

Ld. AR for assessee next submits that the CIT(A) has decided first- appeal ex-parte qua assessee for the reason that the assessee did not make any submission before him despite opportunities given. He further submits that the CIT(A) has simply confirmed the order passed by AO and thereby upheld the additions but the grounds/issues raised by assessee in first appeal requires an apt adjudication by CIT(A) on merit in accordance with provisions of 250(6) of the Act which provides “The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision.”. Therefore, the order passed by CIT(A) deserves to be set aside.

Ld. AR thereafter carries us to the assessment-order and demonstrates that the AO has made addition for lack of evidences which the assessee could not file at that point of time due to his old age and also for the reason that the documents required were old. However, the assessee has partly collected documents and further making serious efforts to collect remaining documents for the assistance of AO. He submitted that in the interest of justice these matters may be remanded back to the file of AO.

Considering above submissions of parties; having regard to the principle of natural justice and also bearing in mind that no prejudice would be caused to revenue if the present matters are restored at the level of AO, we remand these matters back to the file of AO for adjudication afresh, at the risk and responsibility of assessee. The AO shall give necessary opportunity of hearing to assessee and pass appropriate orders uninfluenced by his earlier orders. The assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and ensure participation in the hearings as may be fixed by AO and do not seek unnecessary adjournments failing which the AO shall be at liberty to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly.

Resultantly, these appeals are allowed for statistical purpose.