SHIV SHANKAR,MIRZAPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), MIRZAPUR

(A) These three appeals have been filed by the assessee for assessment year 2015-16 against impugned appellate orders each dated 04/10/2024, DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1069374335(1), No.ITBA/ NFAC /S/250/2024-25/1069374478(1) and No.ITBA/ NFAC/ S/ 250/ 2024- 25/1069374609(1) respectively of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)” for short].

(A.1) First we will take up appeal vide I.T.A. No.178/Alld/2024. The facts of the case, in brief, are that in this case assessment order dated 03/03/2023 , 179 & 180/Alld/2024 Assessment Year:2015-16 2 was passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 147 read with section 144, read with section 144B of the I. T. Act whereby the assessee’s total income was assessed at Rs.87,46,000/-. The order passed by the Assessing Officer was an ex-parte order qua the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A). Vide impugned appellate order dated 04/10/2024, the assessee’s appeal was dismissed by the learned CIT(A). The order of learned CIT(A) was 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 order 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