SIDHARTH SATPAL SAIGAL,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER. 28(3)(1), MUMBAI

2 ITA.No.1749/Mum./2024 Case called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

It emerges t the outset with the able assistance coming from the Revenue side that the learned CIT(A)-NFAC has rejected the assessee’s lower appeal “in limine” for want of payment ofadvanc tax whereby invoking sec. 249(4)(b) of the Act. He appears to have uphold the Assessing Officer’s action making sec.69 unexplained investment addition of Rs.1,28,00,000/- in otherwords for the foregoing sole reason.

The Revenue could hardly dispute during the course of hearing that there is no indication in the CIT(A)-NFAC’s lower appellate discussion about the assessee’s advance tax liability determination as per the provisions of the Act. Nor he appears to have afforded any opportunity to make good the said alleged default; if any. Faced with this situation and in the larger interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to restore the issue back to the CIT(A)-NFAC for it’s afresh adjudication, preferably within three effective opportunities of hearing, subject to the rider that it shall be 3 ITA.No.1749/Mum./2024 the taxpayer’s onus and responsibility only to file and prove all the relevant facts in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms.