PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, FATEHPUR,FATEHPUR SHEKHAWATI vs. ITO TDS-3, JAIPUR

Punjab National Bank cuke The ITO (TDS )3 Vs. Parihar Mension, Sikariya Chouraha, Jaipur Fatehpur Shekhawati LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: JPRPO 1837 D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri Sharwan Gupta, Advocate jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 20/03/2024 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 27/03/2024 vkns'k@ORDER PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM The above mentioned five appeals are filed by the assessee against different orders of the ld. CIT(A) dated 13-06-2023, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ hereinafter referred to as (NFAC) ] for the assessment years 2012-13 to 2016-17 (F.Y. 2011-12 to 2015-16) raising grounds of appeal at Form No. 36 in respective appeals. 2.1 At the outset of the hearing, the Bench noted that there is delay of 182 days in filing the appeals by the assessee for which the assessee filed applications for 2. TO 134/JP/2024 PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK VS ITO, TDS-3, JAIPUR condonation of delay alongwith affidavits therewith in connection with above appeals and the same was objected by the DR. The Bench noted that there is a merit in the condonation applications of the assessee and affidavits as submitted before the Bench. Hence, the delay in filing the above mentioned appeals are condoned. 3.1 Further the Bench at the time of hearing of the appeals noted that the ld. CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order by dismissing the appeals of the assessee. For the sake of convenience the narration as mentioned by the ld. CIT(A) in ITA No. 130/JP/2024 therein are as under:- ‘’4. In the instance of the case, the appellant failed to make any submissions in support of appeal, this gives rise to an undisputable conclusion that the assesee has got nothing more to say in this regard. I have gone through the record before me and based on the record I have decided to adjudicate the issue on the merits of the case. In the instant case, the AO has rightly charged of Rs.3,04,610/- u/s 201(1) and 201(1A). Since the appellant failed to substantiate appellant’s claim and demand raised by the Assessing Officer of Rs.3,04,610/- is hereby confirmed.’’ It is also noteworthy to mention that in other appeals, the ld. CIT(A) has passed the similar ex-parte order giving same narration except in change of amounts