PRAFULLA PANDHARINATH NEWASE,KARJAT AHMEDNAGAR DIST vs. ADDITIONAL JOINT ASST COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX OFFICER NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

It emerges during the course of hearing with the able assistance coming from learned authorised representative representing the assessee that both the learned lower authorities have rejected the assessee’s explanation and made the impugned addition of Rs.20.60 lakhs by incorrectly invoking provisions of 2 ITA.No.1132/PUN./2023 sec.69B of the Act without properly appreciating the fact that the assessee has enough funds to make investments in the partnership-firm and pleaded for one more opportunity be given to the assessee to put-forth his contentions before the NFAC. Mr.Rajpurohit vehemently argued that the assessee had not filed any explanation either before the Assessing Officer or in the lower appellate proceedings and, therefore, the ex-parte order passed by the NFAC be confirmed.

I have heard the submissions of both the parties and perused the case file. The Learned DR could hardly dispute the clinching fact that the NFAC’s impugned lower appellate order has not only been passed ex-parte but also he has allegedly dealt with merits of the assessee’s pleadings without complying with sec.250(6) of the Act requiring him to frame points of determination followed by a detailed adjudication thereupon. He has simply brushed aside the assessee’s pleadings in otherwords. Faced with the situation, I deem it appropriate in the larger interest of justice to restore the assessee’s instant appeal back to the NFAC for it’s afresh adjudication, preferably within three effective opportunities of hearing, subject to the rider that it shall be the taxpayer’s onus and responsibility only to file and prove all the relevant facts in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms.