VISHAL ENTERPRISES,JAMNAGAR vs. ITO, TDS - 3, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year (AYs) 2013-14, is directed against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘NFAC/Ld. CIT(A)’], dated 24.09.2024, which in turn arises out of an order passed by the Assessing Officer (in short ‘assessing officer’), under section 206C(6) and 206C(7) of the Income tax Act, 1961, dated 30.03.2017.

At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee, begins by pointing out that during the appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted, written submission, along with documents and evidences, before ld. CIT(A). However, the ld. CIT(A) did not consider the same and passed the ex-parte order, without considering the documents and evidences of the assessee. The learned Counsel therefore contended that in order to avoid the multiplicity of the proceedings, the matter may be remitted back to the file of the assessing officer, to consider the documents and evidences, and adjudicate the issue as per the provisions of the law.

On the other hand, ld. DR for the revenue, did not have any objection, if the matter is remitted back to the file of the assessing officer, for fresh adjudication.

We have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the fact of the case including the findings of the ld CIT(A) and other materials brought on record. We are of the view that the assessee did not have proper opportunity of being heard before CIT(A) and ex-parte order of CIT(A) dismissing the appeal of the assessee has to be set aside. The ld. Counsel for the assessee also pointed out that order of CIT(A) may be set aside and the issues raised before CIT(A) be remanded to the assessing officer for fresh consideration. It has been submitted that at the assessment stage the assessee could not produce any proper evidence. It has also been submitted that now the assessee is willing to appear before assessing officer and it would be in the interest of justice that the matter should be remanded to the assessing officer. The ld. DR did not object to the prayer made by the ld. Counsel for the assessee.