AMEEN UDDIN,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO 3(4), BHOPAL

Feeling aggrieved by appeal-order dated 03.02.2023 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, [“Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC”], which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 26.02.2016 passed by learned ITO, Ward-3(4), Bhopal [“Ld. AO”] u/s 147 read with section 144 of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for assessment year 2008-09, on the grounds mentioned in appeal memo.

Heard the learned Representatives of both sides at length and case- records perused.

The Ld. AR for assessee straightaway drew our attention to para no. 2 of assessment-order and submitted that the AO has himself noted that the notices dated 12.10.2015 and 26.10.2015 u/s 142(1) were returned by notice-server with the remarks that there were four Houses of same No. 11 (assessee’s house is also No. 11) and the assessee could not be located. The AO has further noted that the Inspector of Income-tax Department was also deputed to serve another notice dated 17.12.2015 u/s 142(1) but even the Inspector could not find address despite making all efforts. This way, Ld. AR demonstrated that the notices issued by AO did not reach to assessee. He submitted that the subsequent notices dated 11.02.2016 and 19.02.2016 mentioned by AO to have been served through speed-post were also not received by assessee. Therefore, the assessee could not make compliance to any of the notices issued by AO. Further, the assessment-order passed by AO came to the knowledge of the assessee only when he received the penalty-orders passed u/s 271(1)(c) and 271(1)(b) of the Act, thereafter the assessee filed application to AO to supply certified copy of assessment-order. Ld. AR submitted that the assessee also apprised these facts to CIT(A)-NFAC during first appeal (Para No. 2 / Page No. 5 of order of first-appeal). Ld. AR submitted that the AO had to make assessment u/s 144 because the Shri Amin Uddin, Bhopal Assessment year 2008-09 assessee did not receive notices and consequently could not file details/ documents/evidences.

Having explained the background of assessment u/s 144, Ld. AR submitted that during first appeal, the assessee filed an application dated 25.10.2017 to CIT(A)-II, Bhopal under Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules, 1962 for admission of additional evidences (Paper Book Page nos. 3 & 4). Thereafter, the CIT(A)-II, Bhopal called remand-report from AO vide his letter dated 22.05.2018 and in response to same, the AO filed his remand-report dated 24.08.2018 alongwith a forwarding letter dated 29.08.2018, which was received by office of CIT(A)-II, Bhopal on 30.08.2018 as is evident from inward-seal affixed by office of CIT(A)-II, Bhopal on top of the forwarding letter. Copies of forwarding-letter and remand-report are reproduced below:

Ld. DR for the Revenue fairly accepted that the AO has reported in the remand-report to CIT(A)-II, Bhopal to consider the additional evidences but it appears from the appeal-order that the same has not been considered by CIT(A)-NFAC. Ld. DR left the matter to the wisdom of Bench.

We have considered the submissions of both sides. On a closer look, we find that initially the first-appeal was dealt by CIT(A)-II, Bhopal in manual system and thereafter the case was migrated to CIT(A)-NFAC (Para No. 1 on Page No. 2 of appeal-order), who passed final order disposing of first-appeal. Therefore, there might have occurred some lapse in communication in-between CIT(A)-II, Bhopal and CIT(A)-NFAC which has led to non-consideration of remand-report. Therefore, in the present case, it is most appropriate to remit this case back to the file of CIT(A)-NFAC who would decide the first appeal afresh after taking into account the remand- report and other submissions of assessee without being influenced by his earlier decision. Needless to mention that the CIT(A)-NFAC shall give

Resultantly, this appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.