SHRI SADGURU MAHILA BAHUODESHIYA SAMITI MARYADIT JANKIKUND CHITRAKOOT,CHITRAKOOT, SATNA vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI

(A) This appeal vide I.T.A. No.52/JBP/2024 has been filed by the assessee for assessment year 2017-18 against impugned appellate order dated 18/07/2023 (DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1054414776(1) of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)” for short].

(B) This appeal has been filed by the assessee, beyond time limit prescribed under section 253(3) of IT Act. The assessee has submitted application for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal pleading that the delay was unintentional and beyond the control of the assessee and has requested to admit the appeal for hearing. The learned Sr. Departmental

I.T.A. No.52/JAB/2024 Assessment Year:2017-18 2

Representative for Revenue did not express any objection to assessee’s application for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. In view of the foregoing, and in specific facts and circumstances of the present appeal before us, the delay in filing of this appeal is condoned; and the appeal is admitted for hearing.

(C) The facts of the case, in brief, are that the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny through CASS and assessment u/s 144 of the Act was completed on 30/11/2019 and penalty of Rs.1,50,000/- u/s 271B of the Act was levied for failure to get the accounts audited as required u/s 44AB of the Act. The order passed by the Assessing Officer was an ex-parte order qua the assessee. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal in the office of learned CIT(A). Vide impugned appellate order dated 18/07/2023, the assessee’s appeal was dismissed by the learned CIT(A) for non proseccution. The order of learned CIT(A) was also passed ex-parte qua the appellant assessee.

(D) At the time of hearing before the Tribunal, there was no representation from the assessee’s side. In the absence of any representation from the assessee’s side, the learned D.R. for Revenue was heard and the materials on record were perused. On perusal of records, it is seen that the assessment order as well as the impugned appellate order of the learned CIT(A), both were passed ex-parte qua the appellant assessee. Further, the assessee was not given reasonable opportunity. In response to a query from Bench, the learned Departmental Representative for Revenue submitted that the issue in dispute may be restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to pass de novo assessment order in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. In view of the foregoing, the order of learned CIT(A)