SINGODWALA DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,VIDHYADHAR NAGAR vs. CIT(A), CIT(A)- JAIPUR

ORDER PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM Both these appeals have been filed by the assessee against two different orders of the ld. CIT(A) dated 06-03-2024, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ hereinafter referred to as (NFAC) ] for the assessment year 2010-11 in the matter of Section 147/144 of the Act (quantum appeal) and Section 271(1)(c) of the Act (Penalty appeal) raising the grounds of appeal as mentioned in Form 36 of respective appeals.

2 SINGODWALA DEVELOPERS PVT LTD. VS ITO, WARD 3(3), JAIPUR 2.1 First of all, the Bench takes up the quantum appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 619/JP/2024 wherein it is noticed that the assessee was ex-parte before the AO who made the addition of Rs.8,66,250/- towards income from undisclosed sources. 2.2 Apart from this, it is also noted from the records that there was delay by the assessee while filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and thus the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on two counts. (i) On account of delay in filing the appeal. (ii) And also on merits of the case, the assessee could not controvert the findings of the AO.

2.3 After hearing both the parties and perusing the materials available on record, it is noted that the assessee was deprived off to contest the case before the lower authorities and ld. AR of the assessee also requested for providing one more chance to contest the case before the AO as a gesture of equity and justice. However, the ld DR supported the orders of the lower authorities. 2.4 Be that as it may 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 3 SINGODWALA DEVELOPERS PVT LTD. VS ITO, WARD 3(3), JAIPUR 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, I am 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 to the file of the AO 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 AO shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by AO independently in accordance with law. 3.1 As regards the penalty appeal of the assessee relating to Section 271(1) © of the Act, the Bench feels that since the quantum appeal of the assessee has been restored to the file of the AO for afresh adjudication, therefore the fate of penalty appeal will be in accordance with decision of quantum appeal. Hence, the same is restored to the file of AO to act in accordance with law.