RAJKUMAR ASNANI,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 2(2), JAIPUR

ORDER PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 30-10-2023, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ hereinafter referred to as (NFAC) ] for the assessment year 2017-18 raising ground of appeal

as mentioned at Form No. 36. 2.1 At the outset of the hearing, the Bench noticed that an adjournment application was filed by the ld. AR of the assesee. However, on going thorough the case file, the Bench found that the assessee was ex-parte before the ld.CIT(A) and 2. RAJ KUMAR ASNANI VS ITO, WARD 2(2), JAIPUR no material was placed on record by the assessee before the Revenue Authorities. Therefore, the Bench is not inclined to adjourn the present appeal and thus the adjournment application is dismissed. Therefore, the Bench decided to dispose off the appeal of the assessee based on the materials available on record. 2.2 On the other hand, the ld. DR is ready to argue the case. 2.3 The Bench has heard the Proxy of the assessee as well as ld. DR and gone through the orders passed by the lower authorities. It is noticed that since the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is ex-parte because of non-submission of documents / details by the assessees, therefore the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. The relevant narration of the ld. CIT(A) are as under:- ‘’7. In view of the above, the undersigned is left with no option but to decide the case on the basis of material on record. Bare perusal of the facts shows that the appellant has not pursued the appeal despite being several opportunities as elaborated supra. The assessee has further jeopardized its can by not responding despite several opportunities that were provided. I am constrained to agree with the approach adopted by the AO imposing penalty. The AO has passed a reasoned and speaking penalty order considering all the facts and the circumstances of the case and no interference with the order of the AO is called for. The grounds of appeal are therefore, dismissed.

8. Thus, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the penalty order passed u/s 270A of the Act dated 28-09-2022 by the AO is upheld.

9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.’’ 3 RAJ KUMAR ASNANI VS ITO, WARD 2(2), JAIPUR 2.4 The Bench further noticed that present appeal relates to imposition of penalty u/s 270A of the Act and it has brought to the notice of the Bench that quantum appeal is still pending before the ld. CIT(A) in which the ld. AR of the assesse has claimed that he has already filed the written submission and paper book in support of his contentions. Therefore, considering these facts, circumstances and also keeping in view the principles of natural justice, the Bench restores the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) by granting one more opportunity to the assessee subject to cost of Rs.1,000/- which will be deposited in the Prime Minister Relief Fund and copy of the same shall be submitted to the ld. CIT(A) for proof and thus the appeal of the assessee is restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to decide it afresh by providing one more opportunity of hearing, however, the assessee will not seek any adjournment on frivolous ground and remain cooperative during the course of proceedings. Thus the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 2.5 Before parting, the Bench makes it clear that its decision to restore the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by ld. CIT(A) independently in accordance with law.