GANGA PRASAD KESARWANI,PRATAPGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , PRATAPGARH., PRATAPGARH.

The facts of the case, in brief, are that in this case the assessee had not filed his return of income. In compliance to notice issued under section 148, the assessee e-filed his return on 24/05/2021 declaring total income at Rs.4,34,690/-. The Assessing Officer noted that the turnover of the assessee was Rs.1,51,89,265/- and assessee has failed to get his accounts audited and also failed to furnish the said audit report as required u/s 44AB of the Act and penalty of Rs.75,950/- u/s 271B of the Act was levied for failure to get the accounts audited as required u/s 44AB of the Act. The order passed by the Assessing Officer was an ex-parte order qua the assessee. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal in the office of learned CIT(A). Vide impugned appellate order dated 28/06/2025, the assessee’s appeal was dismissed by the learned CIT(A) for non prosecution. The order of learned CIT(A) was also passed ex-parte qua the appellant assessee.

At the time of hearing before the Tribunal, there was no representation from the assessee’s side. In the absence of any representation from the assessee’s side, the learned D.R. for Revenue was heard and the materials on record were perused. 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. Further, the assessee was not given reasonable opportunity. In view of the foregoing, the order of learned CIT(A) is set aside and restored back to the file of the learned CIT(A) with the direction to pass de novo order in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.