SAMASUDDIN ,MAINPURI vs. THE I.T.O. 4(2)(4), MAINPURI , MAINPURI

This appeal has been preferred by assessee against the impugned order dated 19.12.2024 passed in Appeal No.NFAC/2018- 19/10321302 by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi u/s. 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) wherein the ld. CIT(Appeals), confirmed the additions made by Assessing Officer vide assessment order dated 02.02.2024 passed u/s. 147/144 of the Act.

Briefly stated, the facts relevant to this case are that on the basis of information available regarding cash deposit in the bank account and not filing of return of income by assessee, the case was reopened and notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued by Assessing Officer. In response to this notice, assessee filed return of income on 02.06.2023 declaring total income of Rs.1,39,410/-. Statutory notices issued u/s. 142(1) and 143(2) remained un-responded. The Assessing Officer, therefore, completed assessment u/s. 144 after rejecting the books of account of assessee u/s. 145(3) of the Act and making addition of Rs.24,64,337/- on account of net profit rate and Rs.1,01,132/- on account of disallowance of assessee’s claim u/s. 80C for want of evidence. These additions stood confirmed by ld. CIT(Appeals) vide impugned order dated 19.12.2024 passed ex-parte.

We have perused the records and heard the ld. Representative for the assessee and the ld. Departmental representative for the Revenue.

Learned representative for the assessee has submitted that the impugned order has been passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals), ex parte without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

Learned DR has submitted that the assessee was provided sufficient opportunity of hearing by learned CIT(Appeals) on various occasions, but for no avail. Learned DR has supported the impugned order.

It transpires from the perusal of records that the assessee did not respond to the notices issued by Assessing Officer in the assessment proceedings, which led the Assessing Officer to complete the assessment u/s. 144 of the Act. We further notice that the assessee also failed to respond to the notices issued by the first appellate authority on 27.09.2024, 08.10.2024, 21.10.2024, 14.11.2024 and 26.11.2024. Such an irresponsive conduct of the assessee cannot be appreciated. It is however noticed that learned CIT(Appeals) passed ex- parte impugned order without any discussion on the merits of the case, whereas learned CIT(Appeals) was expected to state the points for determination, decision thereon and the reasons for the decision as provided u/s. 250(6) of the Act. In the circumstances and in the interest of justice and fair play, we deem it just and appropriate to afford last opportunity to the assessee and remit the matter back to the file of learned CIT(Appeals) for adjudication on merits. We order accordingly.

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. The impugned order dt. 19.12.2024 is set aside.