NARAYAN SINGH RATHORE,BINDAYAKA JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(3), NCRB JAIPUR

Date of Hearing : 30/09/2024 Date of Pronouncement: 29/10/2024 ORDER PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 19-06-2024, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ hereinafter referred to as (NFAC) ] for the assessment year 2011-12 raising the grounds of appeal as mentioned at From 36. 2.2 During the course of hearing, the Bench noted that none appeared on behalf of the assessee when the case was called out for hearing. 2.3 On the other hand, the ld.DR supported the order of the ld. CIT(A)

SHRI NARAYAN SINGH RATHORE VS ITO, WARD 6(3), JAIPUR 2.4 The Bench has heard the ld. DR and perused the orders of the lower authorities and noted that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that the assessee had failed to furnish any plausible explanation before him and thus the assessee is not interested in prosecuting its appeal. The narration as made by the ld. CIT(A) in his order is reproduced as under:- ‘’3.4 I have perused the grounds of appeal

, facts of the case and the assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act. The appellant has not produced any material to controvert the finding of AO with any document, evidence which could rely upon. It has also been observed that the appellant neither disclosed the transaction about sale of land (capital asset) nor made any claim for deduction u/s 54B by filing an Income Tax Return within stipulated time. On merit AO’s order appears to be reasonable as per law. The appellant failed to furnish any proceeding, too. From the above conduct of the assessee, it is clear that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting its appeal. In the event, I have no reason to interfere with the findings of the AO. In such circumstances, I dismiss the claim of the appellant.

4. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.’’ 2.5 From the records, it is noted that since it is an admitted fact that the assessee is ex-parte before the AO and also before the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, he could not put forth his defence. It was the bounded duty of the assessee to appear before the statutory authorities as and when called for. It is noticed that various opportunities were provided to the assessee for settling the issue but the assessee remained lethargic and unserious in pursuing his case for which a cost of Rs.2.000/- is imposed upon the assessee which will be deposited by the assessee in the Prime Minister Relief Fund. However, we are of the view that lis between the parties has to be decided on merits so that nobody’s rights could be scuttled down without providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Hence, the matter is restored