KAMAL,SHAHJAHANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RANGE -1(4), SHAHJAHANPUR

Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC. However, the appeal before the NFAC came to be dismissed for the reason of non-compliance. 4. Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the dismissal of his appeal by the NFAC by raising the following grounds of appeal: 1. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in passing the order which is unlawful, unjustified and against the principles of natural justice. 2. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in passing the order without giving adequate opportunity of being heard. 3. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and facts in upholding addition of Rs.33.30,000/- under section 69A of Income-tax Act, 1961 made by the Id. Assessing Officer. 4. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in passing the appellate order which is contrary to the facts and law. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or withdraw any grounds of appeal or raise any new ground appeal during the pendency of appeal.

None was present for the assessee when the appeal was called out for hearing. However, looking into the facts of the case, I proceed to adjudicate the appeal ex-parte qua the assessee. 6. Since the order passed by NFAC was an ex-parte order, the ld. Senior D.R. had no objection to the restoration of appeal to the NFAC. 7. I have heard the ld. Senior Departmental Representative and have also perused the material on record. It is evident that