SATYA PRAKASH,MAINPURI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MAINPURI

These assessee’s twin appeals & 261/Agr./2024 for Assessment Year 2012-13, arise against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1060022475(1) & 1060023053(1) dated 23.01.2024, in proceedings u/s 147 and u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), respectively.

Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

It emerges at the outset during the course of hearing that the learned CIT(A)/NFAC’s detailed discussion has proceeded ex-parte against the assessee thereby affirming the Assessing Officer’s action making the corresponding disallowances/additions herein. Nor do we find any substantive lower appellate adjudication as contemplated u/s 250(6) of the Act requiring the CIT(A)/NFAC to first frame points of determination followed by a detailed discussion thereupon.

Mr. Srivastava vehemently argues during the course of hearing in support of CIT(A)’s finding that the assessee had not filed any explanation or evidence supporting it’s case and therefore, his instant appeal deserves to be dismissed.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the foregoing rival stand and are of the considered view that since the CIT(A) has proceeded ex-parte against the assessee, possibility of some communication gaps between the taxpayer

Faced with this situation, in the larger interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to restore the assessee’s instant appeal back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for it’s afresh appropriate adjudication, within three effective opportunities subject to a rider that the taxpayer shall plead and prove the case at his own risk and responsibility, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.

These assessee’s twin appeals & 261/Agr./2024 are allowed for statistical purposes. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 06/02/2025.