PURNAND RAMCHANDRA MISHRA,NAGPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), NAGPUR, NAGPUR

Date of Hearing – 18/11/2024 Date of Order – 28/11/2024

O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, J.M.

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the impugned order dated 07/06/2023, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–3, Nagpur, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2019–20.

“1. That, on the facts and circumstances prevailing in the case, the Assessing Officer has not assumed proper jurisdiction to assess the assessee u/s 143(3), as the notice u/s 143(2) was issue beyond the time limit prescribed for issue of notice. 2. That, on the facts and circumstances prevailing in the case, Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to issue notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act.

2 Purnanand Ramchandra Mishra

4. That, on the facts and circumstances prevailing in the case, the Assessing has erred in holding that Shri Anand Pugaliya is not the owner of Rs. 67,50,000/- in the circumstances when Assessing Officer himself accepts books of account of Shri Anand Pugaliya in his own case in the order passed u/s 143(3) which evidences the payment of Rs. 67,50,000/- to the assessee.

3. When this appeal is taken up for hearing, the learned A.R. appearing for the assessee submitted that the learned CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order and prayed that one opportunity may be granted by restoring the matter to the file of the learned CIT(A) to enable the assessee to substantiate its case before the learned CIT(A).

2. On the other hand, the learned D.R. submitted that despite the learned CIT(A) provided sufficient opportunities to the assesse, however, the assessee did not appeared before the learned CIT(A) and not furnished

3 Purnanand Ramchandra Mishra relevant details. He strongly supported the orders passed by the learned CIT(A).

3. We have heard both the parties, perused the materials available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. We find that though the learned CIT(A) granted opportunities to the assessee to substantiate its case, ultimately, the order passed by him is an ex-parte order. Therefore, we am of the opinion that by following the principles of natural justice, one opportunity should be given to the assesse to substantiate his case before the learned CIT(A). In view of the above, the order passed by the learned CIT(A) is set aside and remit the matter to the file of the learned CIT(A) and direct him to adjudicate the matter afresh on merit and in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It is also directed that the assessee should not seek adjournment without there being a justified reason. Accordingly, all the grounds raised by the assessee in this appeal are allowed for statistical purposes.