SHRI KISHAN GUPTA,KANNAUJ vs. ITO WARD 4(2)(3), KANNUAJ, KANNAUJ

The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee, during the demonetization period, had made cash deposit of Rs.10,53,000/- but has not filed ITR for the year under consideration in response to notice issued under section 142(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment in the case of the assessee u/s 144 of the Act and assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs.12,92,040/- and made the addition of Rs.10,53,000/- under section 69A of the Act. The order passed by the Assessing Officer was an ex-parte order qua the assessee. Being aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A). Vide impugned appellate order dated 26/09/2024, the assessee’s appeal was dismissed ex-parte by the learned CIT(A) on the ground of limitation. The assessee had requested for condonation of delay, however, the request of the assessee for condonation of delay was not considered favourably by the learned CIT(A) and the assessee’s appeal was dismissed ex-parte treating the same as inadmissible on grounds of limitation. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed the present appeal in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

At the time of hearing before us, 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 available 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, on perusal of the assessment order and the order u/s 144 of the Act and the impugned appellate orders of learned CIT(A), we find that the Assessing Officer passed ex-parte order without providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee; and the learned CIT(A) also passed the impugned order without providing reasonable opportunities to the assessee.