MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 2(1)(4), GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD, UTTAR PRADESH

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

It emerges during the course of hearing that learned CIT(A)/NFAC has proceeded ex-parte against the assessee whilst confirming the Assessing Officer’s action making short-term capital gain addition of Rs.12,72,670/- in assessment order passed on 01.11.2019 without either having framed points of determination or followed detailed discussion thereupon as contemplated under section 250(6) of the Act. It is in this factual backdrop that the learned counsel vehemently argues that even the Assessing Officer who had framed the assessment, never had the jurisdiction as the assessee’s PAN is registered at Delhi address. She further attributes that the reason of non-appearance/non-cooperation in the various appellate proceedings as due to various communication gaps and therefore, it is submitted that the assessee deserves one more effective inning before the CIT(A). The Revenue could hardly dispute such communication gaps may very well arise in faceless hearing system.

Be that as it may, the tribunal deems it appropriate in these peculiar facts and circumstances in the larger interest of justice to restore the assessee’s instant appeal back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for its afresh appropriate adjudication subject to a rider that he shall