SHRI SWARAN SINGH,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, W-6(3), LUDHIANA

Following grounds have been raised in this appeal :

That order passed u/s 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Ludhiana is against law and facts on the file in as much as she was not justified to decide the appeal ex-parte.

2. That the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in not adjudicating the validity of initiation of proceedings u/s 147. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) was further not justified to uphold the arbitrary addition of Rs. 75,00,000/- made by the Ld. Assessing Officer. 3. The main grievance of the assessee vide Ground No. 1 relates to the exparte order passed by the Ld. CIT(A).

Facts of the case in brief are that the A.O. on the basis that the assessee purchased a property of Rs. 75,00,000/- during the Financial Year relevant to the Assessment Year under consideration issued notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) on 30/03/2018 by recording the reasons to believe that the purchase of the aforesaid property by the assessee had escaped assessment. Since no reply was received from the assessee the A.O. framed the assessment exparte and assessed the income of the assessee at Rs. 75,00,000/-.

Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) who decide the appeal exparte by observing in para 5 of the impugned order as under:

The Ld. CIT(A) sustained the addition made by the A.O. by passing the exparte order.

Now the assessee is in appeal.

Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that no opportunity of being heard was provided by the Ld. CIT(A) and the date of hearing on 12/07/2019 was not conveyed to the assessee, therefore the addition sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified.

In his rival submissions the Ld.Sr. DR supported the orders of the authorities below and further submitted that considering the non cooperative attitude of the assessee there was no alterative except to pass the assessment order exparte and that the Ld. CIT(A) was also justified in sustaining the addition, since the assessee did not explain the source of investment in the property.

We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the A.O. passed the assessment order exparte and the Ld. CIT(A) also passed the impugned order exparte, he simply stated that whenever the case was fixed, non-attended, he also mentioned that the notice dated 25/06/2019 for hearing on 10/07/2019 was served through notice server and the case was adjourned to 12/07/2019, however, it is not brought on record as to whether the said date for hearing on 12/07/2019 was communicated to 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.