MR. SHAILESH SHASHIKANT SHETH ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 23(3)(6), MUMBAI

1. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order 02.09.2024, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (‘Ld. CIT(A)’), for the assessment year 208-19.

At the very outset, on the perusal of the case file, we noticed that the CIT(A) has passed ex-parte order confirming the penalty. The Ld. AR submitted that quantum has not been challenged as the same has been accepted by the assessee in order to buy peace but the fact remains that impugned order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) was ex-parte as the assessee could not appear or file their written submissions before the Ld.CIT(A).

In our view the interest of justice would be met in case the lis between the parties be decided on merits after providing fair opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Therefore, considering the above factual and legal position the Bench feels that the ends of justice would be met only if the matter is restored back to the file of the A.O to decide the matter afresh and the rights of the revenue would not be prejudice. Whereas in case proper and sufficient opportunity is not given to the asessee then in that eventuality the rights of the assessee shall be prejudice. Thus the appeal of the assessee is restored to the file of A.O to decide it afresh by providing one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee shall not seek any adjournment on frivolous grounds and remain cooperative during the course of proceedings and the appeal of the assessee is thus allowed for statistical purposes.