M/S AABDEEN TRAVEL SERVICES,KANPUR vs. ITO-1(3)(1), KANPUR

2017-18 against impugned appellate order dated 18/10/2023 (DIN & Order No:ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1057161175(1) of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)” for short].

(B) The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a firm engaged in the business of tours and travels. The assessee filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 01/11/2017 declaring total income of Rs.1,36,861/-. The Assessing Officer processed the return and passed assessment order under section 143(3) of the I. T. Act on 23/12/2019 and Assessment Year:2017-18 2 determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.79,88,860/- by making additions of Rs.78,52,000/- under section 68 of the I. T. Act. Being aggrieved, the assessee went in appeal before the learned CIT(A), who has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

(C) At the time of hearing, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the impugned order of learned CIT(A) was passed without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant assessee. Further, he also contended that the impugned order of learned CIT(A) did not meet the requirement of passing a speaking order on merits. He submitted that the learned CIT(A) should be directed to pass de novo order in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Learned CIT (D.R.) did not express any objection and left the matter to the discretion of the Bench. In view of the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the assessee, the impugned order of learned CIT(A) is set aside and the issue in dispute is 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 to the assessee.

(D) In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

(Order pronounced in the open court on 05/01/2026)