NARMADA INN,BESIDE SHUBH MOTORS, KATRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MANDLA WARD, MANDLA

PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.:

1. That the Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) has grossly erred in facts and circumstances of the case to pass ex-parte order.

2. That the NFAC has grossly erred in facts and circumstances of the case to confirmed the income at Rs.28,75,606/- against the returned income at Rs.35,244/-.

3. That the disallowance made at Rs.2,30,149/- on account of payment of Provident Fund is unjustified.

4. That the confirmation of rent receipt of Rs.8,86,840/- considered as house property income as against the business income and allowed deduction u/s 24(2) at Rs.2,66,052/- as against the business expenses is unjustified.

5. That the confirmation of income from marriage garden considered at Rs.19,89,426/- without considered the business expenses is arbitrary and bad in law.”

Page 2 of 4 2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the assessee filed his return of income on 01.09.2017 through electronically mode for the assessment under consideration, declaring total income at Rs.35,244/-, after taking deduction under Chapter VI-A at Nil. Thereafter, the case was selected for scrutiny through Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS). The Assessing Officer issued statutory notices but there was no compliance on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, the Assessing Officer passed an exparte order thereby he assessed income u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as to “the Act”) at Rs.28,75,610/-. Aggrieved by this, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Before Ld. CIT also there was no representation on behalf of the assessee, therefore, the appeal was dismissed without going into the merits of the case. Now the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

4. On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) opposed the submission and supported the orders of the lower authorities. The Ld. DR contended that the assessee was not vigilant about his case; therefore, the assessee cannot be given benefit of its own negligence. He further submitted that the assessee failed to support his case. Hence, appeal deserves to be dismissed.

5. I have heard the Ld. Representatives of the parties and perused the material available on record. Undisputedly, there was no effective representation by the assessee before lower Page 3 of 4 authorities. It is the case of the assessee that the assessing authority made additions without considering the facts and circumstances of the case and material placed before him. It is also contended that the First Appellate Tribunal also did not provide adequate opportunity to the assessee.

6. Having considered the materials available on record. I am of the considered view that in the interest of justice and in all fair play, the assessee should be given one chance to explain his case before the lower authorities. Therefore, the impugned orders of the lower authorities are set aside and the assessment is restored to the Assessing Officer to decide the matter afresh and pass denovo assessment order. Grounds raised in this appeal are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 08/01/2025.