Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
आदेश/Order
The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 19.12.2019 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Karnal [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’]
The appeal of the assessee is barred by limitation period of 03 days. A separate application for Condonation of Delay alongwith affidavit dated 27.2.2020 has been received by the Registry on 2.3.2020. Considering the grounds mentioned in the application for Condonation -Chd-2019 Smt. Aishwarya Gaur, Kurukshetra 2 of Delay, which is supported by affidavit, and also considering the shortness of the delay period of only 03 days, the delay in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned.
The assessee in this appeal has taken following grounds of appeal:-
Section144 – The Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in 1. law while making the best judgement assessment u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Section 69 – The officer has erred in law while treating 2 share of cash deposit in Joint Account with his father Late Shri Varinder Gaur and Anuradha Gaur.
General Ground –The addition made by Ld. Assessing 3. Officer is untenable and bad in law on the basis of fact of the case and judicial pronouncements.
In this appeal, the main grievance of the assessee relates to the ex- parte order passed by the CIT(A) stating that the same is against the principles of natural justice.
During the course of hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the very outset, has stated that no notices of hearings for the dates fixed were received by the assessee, therefore, the CIT(A) was not justified in passing the ex-parte order without providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Ld. Counsel has further submitted that even the assessment order dated 12.12.2018 passed by the -Chd-2019 Smt. Aishwarya Gaur, Kurukshetra 3 Assessing Officer was an ex-parte order. It has been further submitted by the Ld. Counsel that the assessee is a lady and does not know the intricacies of taxation laws and procedures. She had a family problem and, therefore, she shifted from Kurukshetra to Gurgaon and now has again shifted back to Kurukhetra. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the matter may be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer so that assessee may get an opportunity to present her case.
In his rival submissions, the Ld. DR although supported the orders of the lower authorities but could not controvert the aforesaid contention of the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee.
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 Ld. CIT(A) as well as Assessing Officer passed the impugned orders ex-parte and nothing is brought on record to substantiate that the notices for hearing were served upon the assessee.
It is well settled that nobody should be condemned unheard as per the maxim, “audi alteram pertam”. We, therefore, by keeping in view the principles of natural justice deem it appropriate to set aside this case back to the file of the Assessing Officer in this case, to be adjudicated afresh in accordance with law after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. -Chd-2019 Smt. Aishwarya Gaur, Kurukshetra 4 In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 10.12.2020