Anil Kumar vs Income Tax Officer

PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM:

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Nashik (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’) dated 16.12.2025, for AY 2014-15.

Both sides heard, orders of the authorities below examined. A perusal of assessment order reveals that the same has been passed in ex-parte proceedings u/s.144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) making addition of Rs.14,26,200/- by estimating net profit @1% of total transaction of Rs.14,26,20,189/- from trading of shares. In First Appellate proceedings, the assessee furnished additional evidences. The same were forwarded to the Assessing Officer (AO) for his comments and Remand Report under Rule 46A. In the Remand Report, the AO has rejected the additional evidences filed by the assessee. Based on the Remand Report, the CIT(A) dismissed appeal of the assessee.

The only grievance of the assessee is that proper opportunity of hearing has not been allowed to the assessee. Though, the additional evidences filed by the assessee were forwarded to the AO for his comments, the entire emphasizes of the AO in the Remand Report is in rejecting the additional evidences without any substantive comments on merits of the additional evidences filed by the assessee. Considering entire facts of the case, I deem it appropriate to restore the issue back to the AO for denovo assessment after affording reasonable opportunity of making submissions to the assessee, in accordance with law.

The assessee shall respond to the notice(s) served by the AO, without fail.

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.