M/S. BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICAL EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ITO-5(2), BHOPAL

appeal under the Act. The assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing Number ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1066023601(1) dated 25.06.2024 passed by Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act which is hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned order”. The relevant

Page 1 of 5 Assessment Year is 2013-14 and the corresponding previous year period is from 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2013.

That the assessment order is dated 18.01.2016 u/s 143(3) of the Act which is hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Assessment Order”.

2.2 That the assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid “Impugned Assessment order” prefers first appeal u/s 246A of the Act before Ld. CIT(A) who by the “Impugned order” has dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

2.3 That the assessee being aggrieved by the “Impugged order” has preferred the instant second appeal before this Tribunal and has raised following grounds of appeal in Form No.36 against the “Impugned order” which are as under:-

1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by the Hon'ble CIT(A) in passed in an ex-parte manner and without following to the principles of natural justice hence it is humbly requested that the said case may kindly be set aside to Hon'ble CIT-(A) for proper representation.

2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT-(A) erred in confirming the erroneous disallowance made by the Ld. AO by denying deduction of Rs. 1,00,000/-claimed u/s 80P(2)(C)(i) of the Income Tax Act. 1961 without properly appreciating the facts of the case and the submissions on record.

3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT-(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the Ld. AO of Rs. 29,041/- by disallowing the revenue expenses on account of repairs of Rolling Shutter and erroneously treating the same as a capital expenditure.

4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT-(A) erred in confirming the addition made by Ld. AO of Rs. 13,81,314/- on account of disallowances u/s 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act without properly appreciating the facts of the case and the submissions on record.

5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT-(A) erred in confirming the addition made by Ld. AO of Rs. 1,77,90,722/-, on account of variation in receipts as per the books of accounts and as per Form 26AS, without properly appreciating the facts of the case and the submissions made before him.

6. The appellant seeks to leave, add, alter, amend, abandon or substitute any of the above grounds during the hearing of the appeal.”

Further the assessee does not regularly see the portal. Hence no communication with regard to hearing was ever received and hence no opportunity of hearing could be availed off by the assessee due to bonafide reasons.

3.2 Per contra Ld. DR for and on behalf of the Revenue contended that Revenue has no objection if the “Impugned order” is set aside and matter is remanded back to the file of CIT(A) for denovo adjudication and adjudgement.

4.1 We now have to decide the legality, validity and the proprietary of the “Impugned Order” basis records of the case and rival contentions canvassed before us.

4.2 We have carefully perused the records of the case.

4.3 We basis records of the case and after hearing and upon examining the contentions, are of the considered opinion that “Impugned order” has just not examined merits of the case as contemplated by law u/s 250(6) of the Act and further no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the assessee. Under these

Page 4 of 5 circumstances we set aside the “Impugned order” and remand the case back to the file of CIT(A) to pass a fresh order on Denovo basis after giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee to present case.

5.2 Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in open court on 29.04.2025.