AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal arises from order dated 18.11.2024, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”), by NFAC. In this case, none appeared on behalf of the assessee on the last date of hearing but it was decided to proceed ahead with the help of Ld. DR. It is seen that in this case, the Ld. AO made an addition of Rs.27,33,500/- u/s 69A of the Act, due to which the assessee approached the Ld. CIT(A) with his grievance.
It is seen that before the Ld. CIT(A) there was no compliance whatsoever to the three notices issued for filing submissions (page 5 para 5 of the impugned order).
Further aggrieved, the assessee has approached the ITAT where the first ground taken is challenging the ex parte order.
The Ld. DR assisted the Bench in going through the records. It was pointed out that the assessee had sufficient opportunity to present the facts before both the Ld. AO and the Ld. CIT(A). It was pointed out by the Ld. DR that in the face of non-compliance by the assessee either of the authorities below had no option but to pass orders in an ex parte manner.
We have considered the submissions of Ld. DR and have gone through the records before us. We find that the assessee did not appear before the Ld.CIT(A) but has challenged the action of Ld.CIT(A) in passing an ex parte order. While we reserve our comment on the alertness of the assessee regarding taxation matters, we are bound by the Judicial Principle of Natural Justice and therefore, we deem it fit to set aside the impugned order and remand this matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh assessment, after providing an opportunity of being heard.
In the result, appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes.