SHRI HARJEET SINGH,MOHALI vs. ITO-WARD-6(4), MOHALI

Following grounds have been raised in this appeal :

That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Chandigarh as erred in passing ex-party order and confirming the order of Assessing Officer.

2. Notwithstanding the above said grounds of Appeal, the addition as confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) is against the facts and circumstances of the case.

Facts of the case in brief are that the A.O. on the basis of information received that the assessee had deposited cash of Rs. 13,19,000/- in his bank account maintained with ICICI Bank, Chandigarh and paid Rs. 17,56,482/- against credit bills during the F.Y. 2009-10 relevant to the A.Y. under consideration and that no return of income was filed by him. He therefore initiated the proceedings under section 147 r.w.s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’). The A.O. observed that whenever the case was fixed either the assesse sought adjournment or did not attend. And whenever the assessee attended and filed written submission those were placed on record. The A.O. framed the assessment exparte and made the addition of Rs. 30,75,482/-( Rs. 13,19,000 + 17,56,482) by observing that in the absence of any explanation the said amount stood unexplained.

Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the assessee’s appeal by pasing the impugned order exparte.

Now the assessee is in appeal.

The main grievance of the assessee relates to the exparte order passed by the Ld. CIT(A).

Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the notice for hearing issued by the Ld. CIT(A) was not received by the assessee, therefore the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in passing the impugned order and confirmed the addition made by the A.O. without providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It was submitted that the assessee had all the evidences to prove his case.

In his rival submissions the Ld. DR supported the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and further submitted that the assessee was non cooperative and never attended, therefore there was no alternative except to decide the case of the assessee exparte. In his rejoinder the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee furnished the copy of the assessment order dt. 26/10/2018 for the subsequent A.Y. 2011-12 wherein similar type of credit card payment were accepted by the A.O. while framing the assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act.

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. framed the assessment exparte under section 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act and the Ld. CIT(A) also dismissed the appeal of the assessee exparte, he simply stated that the various notice for hearing were issued on different dates to the assessee by speed post and none appeared. However nowhere he 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 the A.O. 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.