आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, बी Ûयायपीठ,चेÛनई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय Įी मन ु क ु मार ͬगǐर, ÛयाǓयक सदèय एवं Įी एस.आर. रघ ु नाथा, लेखा सदèय के सम¢ BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM AND SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 930/CHNY/2024 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ponny Retail’s Private Limited, 64/67, ARYA Gowda Road, West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033. PAN: AAFCP 5163M Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle I, LTU, Chennai (अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant) (ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/Respondent) अपीलाथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Appellant by : Shri. R. Venkata Raman, C.A., ᮧ᭜यथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Respondent by : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, IRS, JCIT. सुनवाई कᳱ तारीख/Date of Hearing : 24.06.2024 घोषणा कᳱ तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 28.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R PER MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member) This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi in order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1060531004(1) dated 06.02.2024 for assessment year 2014- 2015. The assessment was framed by the ACIT, Circle 1, LTU, - 2 - ITA No.930/Chny/2024 Chennai for the assessment year 2014-15 u/s.147 r.w.s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’), vide order dated 30.03.2022. 2. Brief facts of the case are that appellant is a company had failed to file return of income for the year under consideration. The Assessing Officer was in possession of information that assessee received a sum of Rs.3,70,24,475/- on sale of immovable property. The case was reopened u/s 147 of the Act and issued notice u/s 148 of the Act. The assessee failed to provide the details called for during the assessment proceedings and AO completed the assessment u/s 144 r.w.s 147 and made addition u/s 68 of the Act of Rs.3,70,24,475/- and raised a demand of Rs.6,87,13,820/-. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. Counsel for the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) had filed additional evidence, however ld. CIT(A) has not considered the same since assessee could not prove that it was prevented by sufficient cause mentioned in Sub-Rule (1) to Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 and he confirmed the action of the ld. Assessing Officer. Aggrieved, by the order of the ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. Admittedly, assessee has filed written submission before the ld.CIT(A) and the ld.CIT(A) has not considered the same. We find that Ld.CIT(A) has failed to follow the - 3 - ITA No.930/Chny/2024 principles of natural justice in true spirit. We also find that the assessment order dated 30.03.2022 was passed ex-parte just after end of Covid-19 pandemic hence, keeping in mind the principle of natural justice, we set aside this appeal to the file of ld.AO to do de novo assessment in accordance with law subject to cost of Rs.2000/- which shall be deposited by the assessee within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order to ‘Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority’ at Hon’ble High Court of Madras. The proof of the same will be furnished by the Assessee before Ld.AO, whose shall proceed for de novo assessment. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is restored back to the file of Ld.AO for de novo assessment. 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 28th day of June, 2024 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- एस.आर. रघ ु नाथा (S.R. RAGHUNATHA) लेखा सदèय/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (मन ु क ु मार ͬगǐर) (MANU KUMAR GIRI) ÛयाǓयक सदèय / JUDICIAL MEMBER चे᳖ई/Chennai, ᳰदनांक/Dated, the 28 th June, 2024 KV आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/Respondent 3. आयकर आयुᲦ /CIT, Chennai 4. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध/DR 5. गाडᭅ फाईल/GF. - 4 - ITA No.930/Chny/2024