GHANSHYAM LALWANI,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 43(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appearances by: Assessee represented by : Siddarth Agarwal, Advocate Department represented by : Supriya Pal Add. CIT, Sr. DR Date of concluding the hearing :September23, 2024 Date of pronouncing the order :September23,2024 ORDER Per SonjoySarma, Judicial Member:

This appeal filed by the assessee pertaining to the Assessment Year (in short „AY‟) 2013-14is directed against the order passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the „Act‟) by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax,National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi,dated 27.03.2024 arising out of Assessment Order dated 30.03.2016, passed under Section143(3) read with section 145(3) of the Act.

Ghanshyam Lalwani 2. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

1. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in passing an ex-parte order.

2. For that the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in upholding the action of the A.O. in invoking the provisions of section 145(3) r.w. section 144 and making the addition of Rs. 15,33,430/- as differences in gross profit.

3. For that the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in holding that the A.O. had correctly stated the income at Rs. 13,56,160/- considering the additions made to the total income.

4. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 12,00,000/- made by the A.O. on account of cash deposits treating the same as unexplained cash credit by wrongly invoking the provisions of section 68 of the Act.

5. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have allowed the deduction claimed by the assessee under Chapter VIA u/s 80DDto the tune of Rs.50,000/-.

6. The appellant craves leave to add further grounds of appeal or alter the grounds at the time of hearing.”

3. At the time of hearing, the Ld. AR stated that the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is an ex-parte order andthe assessee did not get any opportunity to represent its case properly. Therefore, another opportunity may be given to the assessee so that assessee can represent its case properly before the Ld. CIT(A).

4. On the other hand, the Ld. DR objected to such prayer made by the AR of the assessee,he stated that ample opportunities have been given to the assessee before passing such impugned order. However, the assessee nor its representative filed any response in compliance to the notices issued by the CIT(A). Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) has no other alternative but to pass as an ex-parte order. We after hearing the rival submission of the parties and perusing the material available on record. We find that the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is an ex-parte order. Although notices were served upon the assessee but AR of the assessee did not represent the case Ghanshyam Lalwani properly and due to this reason, an ex-parte order was passed against the assessee. We afterconsidering the facts of the case, and interest of justice find it necessary to remand back the whole issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to re-examine the issue afresh after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Assessee is also directed to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) as and when notice for hearing issued from Ld. CIT(A)on such date without any fail. In terms of the above, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.