SHRI PUSHPENDRA SAINI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-5(1), JAIPUR

The hearing of the matter was scheduled for today through video conferencing in view of the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic situation in the country. Ms. Shivangi Samdhani, the authorized representative appeared on behalf of the assessee and submitted that the assessee is contemplating to opt for VIVAD SE VISHWAS SCHEME and therefore matter may be adjourned. Pushpendra Kumar Saini, Jaipur Vs. ITO, Jaipur 3. The ld. DR is heard who has drawn our reference to the order of ld. CIT(A) and submitted that ample opportunity has been provided by the ld CIT(A), however, every time, the matter was listed for hearing, adjournment application was filed by the authorized representative and effectively, there is no compliance to the notices before the ld CIT(A) and the matter has accordingly been decided by the ld CIT(A) confirming the addition made by the AO. It was further submitted that even before the Tribunal, the matter has been listed in the past, however, the authorized representative has sought adjournment from time to time and even today, when the matter was listed for hearing, request has been made for adjourning the matter. It was accordingly submitted that more than adequate opportunity has been provided by the ld. CIT(A) and the Tribunal, no useful purpose would be served in providing further opportunity to the assessee. On merits, the ld DR supported the findings of the lower authorities.

We have heard the rival submissions and pursued the material available on record. We find that the Assessing officer has passed the impugned order dated 24.12.2014 whereby addition of Rs 14,00,662/- has been made towards unexplained deposits and which has been confirmed by the ld CIT(A). No doubt, the matter has been listed for hearing before the ld CIT(A) on couple of occasions and has been adjourned by the ld CIT(A) on each of such occasions at the request of the authorized representative and on the last occasion, there is non-compliance as well and therefore, the matter has been decided ex-parte by the ld CIT(A). However, given that the assessee through his authorized representative has stated that he is contemplating filing an application under VIVAD SE VISHWAS SCHEME in the near future and thus intend to end this litigation, we find that no useful purpose would be served in granting further adjournment in the matter and the adjournment application is hereby rejected. At the same time, given that the matter has Pushpendra Kumar Saini, Jaipur Vs. ITO, Jaipur not been decided on merits, we deem it appropriate to remand the matter to the file of the ld CIT(A). This will not prejudice the right of the assessee in availing of the aforesaid settlement scheme as once the assessee decides to opt for the scheme and has taken necessary steps as so specified therein, he can bring the same to the notice of the ld CIT(A) who shall then decide and take appropriate action as per law.

With the aforesaid directions, the matter is set-aside to the file of the ld CIT(A) who shall decide the same afresh after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee.