YASHPAL MEHTA,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, W-6(5), LUDHIANA

During the course of hearing nobody was present on behalf of the assessee we therefore proceeded exparte and the appeal is decided on merits after hearing the Ld. DR.

The Registry has pointed out that the appeal of the assessee is barred by limitation by one day and the assessee filed an application dt. 11/10/2020 for condonation of delay stating therein as under:

The Ld. Sr. DR although opposed the application moved by the assessee for condonation of delay however could not controvert the contents of the said application. We therefore considering the smallness in delay i.e; only one day condone the delay by taking a liberal approach and considering the principle of natural justice. Accordingly the appeal of the assessee is admitted.

Following grounds have been raised in this appeal:

That the order announced is bad and against the facts and law of the case.

That a request for adjournment was made before the learned CIT(A) Ludhiana which was rejected by the him and passed the order without considering the facts of the case.

That the penalty confirmed U/s 271B has wrongly been imposed and liable to the deleted.

That the appellant craves to amend, alter, delete or supplement any grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard and disposed off.

That the assessee prays that the appeal be allowed in full and demand raised by the A.O. be deleted.

Facts of the case in brief are that the assessment in this case was completed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) on 28/12/2017 at an income of Rs. 63,96,920/-. The A.O. noticed that the assessee was required to get his accounts audited under section 44AB of the Act as his turnover exceeded the prescribed limit of Rs. 1 Crores for the assessment year under consideration. He therefore initiated the penalty proceedings under section 271B of the Act and levied the penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/-.

Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) who disposed off the appeal exparte and sustained the penalty levied by the A.O. by dismissing the appeal of the assessee in limine without discussing the merit of the case.

Now the assessee is in appeal.

The Ld. DR strongly supported the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A).

We have considered the submissions of the Ld. DR and the material available on the record. It is noticed that the Ld. CIT(A) mentioned in para 5 of the impugned order that the notice for hearing was issued to the assessee on 21/01/2019 for hearing on 28/01/2019 thereafter another notice was issued on 04/02/2019 for hearing on 14/02/2019 which were not complied. In the present case nothing is brought on record that the notice for hearing was served upon the assessee. It is well settled that nobody should be condemned, unheard as per the maxim, “audi alteram partem”.

We therefore keeping in view the principles of natural justice deem it appropriate to set aside this case back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) to be adjudicated afresh in accordance with law after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.