SEEMA SUKETU SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(5), AHMEDABAD

The bunch of two appeals filed at the instance of the assessee are directed against the orders both dated 17.08.2023 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, arising out of the orders both dated 20.11.2017 passed by the ITO, Ward – 2(2)(5), Ahmedabad, under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act for Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12.

It is an admitted fact that in spite of notice issued to the appellant, the appellant did not appear before the First Appellate Authority and order was passed ex parte confirming the order passed by the Ld. AO. However, the order of confirmation of addition made by the Ld. AO is not a speaking one. No reason has been assigned as to why on merit the addition has been confirmed which was found to have been passed contrary to the provision under Section 250(6) of the Act. Hence, the same is also not found to be sustainable in the eye of law. We, therefore, as admittedly the order is passed ex parte and not a speaking and reasoned one. We, thus, quash the same.

However, taking into consideration the entire aspect of the matter, we find it fit and proper to provide a further opportunity of being heard to the appellant in order to enable him to represent her cases before the First Appellate Authority on merit in its proper perspective. The Ld. DR has also with all her fairness not controverted such proposal made by us before the Court itself. We, therefore, under the present facts and circumstances of the matters, set aside the issue to file of the Ld.CIT(A) for adjudicating the same afresh upon considering the evidence on record or any other evidence which the assessee may choose to file at the time of hearing of the matter. We also make it clear that in & 801/Ahd/2023 (Seema Suketu Shah vs. ITO) A.Ys.– 2010-11 & 2011-12 - 3 – the event the assessee fails to co-operate with the Ld. AO, the authority will be at liberty to pass order strictly in accordance with law.

In the result, both the appeals preferred by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.