2025 (10) TMI 520

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'CIT(A)'] u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). 2. In ITA Nos. 4,5,6,7 and 413/Pat/2024 are relating to quantum additions made/confirmed by the lower authorities relating to AYs 2012-13, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2014-15 respectively. ITA Nos. 412, 414, 415 & 416/Pat/2024 are relating to the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s. 271(1)(b)/272A(1)(d) of the Act respectively for non-compliance of the notices issued during assessment proceedings. 3. First, we take up the quantum appeals. The ITA No. 5/Pat/2024, AY 2015-16 is the main case wherein the assessment was framed u/s. 143(3) of the Act. Based on the as....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ent for other assessment years as detailed above and in the reopened assessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act, he made the addition in respect of the income shown by the assessee from agricultural activities. 5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred appeals before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the additions so made by the Assessing Officer. 6. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the record. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that though the assessment was carried out for AY 2015-16 u/s. 143(3) of the Act, however, in relation to the other assessment years except AY 2017-18, the assessments framed are ex parte assessment....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he relevant evidences to prove that the claim of the assessee is genuine and not bogus. We are of the view that the interests of justice will be well served if the assessee is given an opportunity to present his case before the Assessing Officer. Further, we note that except for AY 2015-16, for the other assessments years, the case of the assessee remained unrepresented before the Assessing Officer. Even for AY 2017-18, the Assessing Officer without examining the evidence on the file based his finding mainly on the basis of the assessment order for AY 2015-16 only. Under the circumstances, we are of the view that the matter is required to be examined afresh thoroughly at the end of the Assessing Officer. We, therefore, set aside the impugne....