PRAMOD KUMAR,GOPALGANJ vs. ITO WARD 2 (4), SIWAN

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a proprietorship concern, who filed his return of income for the assessment year (A.Y. 2017-2018) Pramod Kumar 2017-18 showing total income of Rs.2,37,770/-. The assessee is engaged in the business of wholesale/ retail sale of cattle feeds. The case of the assessee was selected under CASS for scrutiny under s4ection 143(3). Subsequently notice under section 143(2) was issued on 18.08.2018 for compliance on 30.08.2018. Subsequently, notice under section 142(1) alongwith questionnaire was issued on 09.10.2019 for compliance. As the assessee could not respond to the notices issued by the ld. Assessing Officer, the assessment was concluded at an assessed income of Rs.7,28,660/- under section 144 of the Act. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals).

The appellant’s appeal was fixed for hearing and the ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals)-2, Ludhiana issued several notices but the asseessee did not respond to the notices issued by the ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals)-2, Ludhiana. Therefore, the ld. CIT(Appeals) has passed an ex-parte order basing on the material available on record and dismissed the assessee’s appeal.

On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal raising the following issues:- For that orders of the Authority below are bad in law and facts. (1) For that unfortunately compliance could not be made at the (2) assessment stage because of the negligence of the Counsel handling the case an ex-parte order was passed. Even at the appellate stage the final show cause could not be complied with. The appellant highly regrets the non-compliance and humbly prays that one more opportunity may kindly be given for making submission.

(A.Y. 2017-2018) Pramod Kumar For that the learned A.O. is not justified in making addition of (3) Rs.5,85,500/- deposited in bank during demonetization period. (4) For that considering the fact that the turnover of the business is Rs.1.27 Crores and the audited accounts and ITR were duly filed u/s 139(1). The addition of Rs 5,85,500/- is uncalled for. (5) For that the appellant is engaged in regular business of cattle feed and the old notes in hand as per books of accounts were deposited in the regular bank account. Thus, the addition made should not have been considered as unexplained money u/s 69A of the I.T Act. For that considering the facts and circumstances of the case (6) necessary orders may kindly be passed and the addition of Rs.5,85,500/- may kindly be deleted.

We have heard D.R. the sides and carefully perused the materials available on record. On examining the facts of the case, we find that the ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals)-2, Ludhiana had posted the case on several occasions, but there was no response on behalf of the assessee before the ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) on the dates of hearing with regard to the details as called for by the ld. CIT(Appeals). Therefore, the ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) was left with no other option except adjudicate the appeal ex-parte and dismissed the appeal by confirming the addition made by the ld. Assessing Officer. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) instead of disposing the appeal on merit dismissed the appeal ex-parte. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the issues involved in the appeal as well as considering the plea of the ld. A.R., by following the principles of natural justice, we hereby remit the matter back to the file of Ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) in order to consider the appeal afresh and decide the case on merits by providing one more opportunity to the assessee of being heard in 3 (A.Y. 2017-2018) Pramod Kumar accordance with the principles of natural justice. At the same breath, we also hereby caution the assessee to promptly co-operate before the Ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) in the proceedings failing which the Ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law and merits based on the materials available on the record. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.