AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
These are a batch of two appeals pertaining to the same assessee. While ITA 6469 pertains to the quantum matter; ITA 6470 pertains to a penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”) on the quantum.
ITA 6469 arises from order dated 14.05.2026, passed u/s 250 of the Act by NFAC. ITA 6470 arises from order dated 20.05.2026, passed u/s 250 of the Act by NFAC.
It is seen that during re-assessment proceedings the assessee did not respond to any of the notices providing opportunity of being heard, leading to an ex parte order. Even the penalty matter was dealt with in an ex parte manner by the Ld. AO.
It is seen that even before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee did not substantively respond to the opportunities given for hearing. For both the appeals this situation is seen to prevail and the Ld. CIT(A) is seen to have dismissed both the appeals by upholding the action of Ld. AO.
The aggrieved assessee has approached the ITAT with grounds challenging the impugned actions on merit as well as raising grounds of denial of the principles of natural justice.
Before us the Ld. AR stated that due to a communication gap between the assessee and his tax consultant the assessee could not effectively comply before either of the authorities below. The Ld. AR assured that in case the matter was to be remanded back to the Ld. AO then the assessee would cooperate in the proceedings, to the best of his ability.
The Ld. DR did not have any objection in case the matters were to be remanded back.
We have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the records before us. We find that the assessee has been found lacking in pursuing his matters before the authorities below. However, in the interest of substantive justice, we deem it fit to set aside the impugned orders in both the cases and remit the same back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. We may add that in case the assessee is not found to be serious in pursuing his matters before the Ld. CIT(A), then the Ld. CIT(A) would be at liberty to take an adverse view in the two matters.
In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes.