SHRI PRITAM SINGH,RAIKOT vs. ITO, W-2, JAGRAON

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 she was not justified in not adjudicating the ground relating to re- opening of the case u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. That she was further not justified to arbitrarily reject the ground relating to addition of Rs. 76,00,000/- deposited in the bank account of the appellant’s sons.

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

Facts of the case in brief are that the A.O. on the basis of the information that the assessee had deposited cash amounting to Rs. 1,27,30,000/- in her saving bank account maintained with Punjab and Sindh Bank issued the notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) to the assessee. The A.O. observed that the assessee furnished the evidence of sale of land for Rs. 49,50,000. According to him, the assessee failed to produce the evidence for balance amount. The A.O. made the addition of Rs. 77,80,000/- while framing the assessment under section 144 of the Act.

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

Now the assessee is in appeal.

Ld. Counsel for the Assessee at the very outset stated that the A.O. while passing the assessment order under section 144 of the Act made the addition of Rs. 77,80,000/- on the basis that the assessee had deposited said amount in his bank account. However there was no such deposit in the bank account of the assessee, therefore the addition made by the A.O. was not justified. He further stated that the Ld. CIT(A) without providing opportunity of being heard, was not justified in dismissing the appeal of the assessee and in sustaining the addition made by the A.O. He requested to restore the matter back to the file of the A.O. for fresh adjudication after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

In his rival submissions the Ld. DR although supported the orders of the authorities below but could not rebut 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 A.O. framed the assessment under section 144 of the Act and made the addition of Rs. 77,80,000/- by observing that the said amount was deposited by the assessee in his bank account. On the contrary the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee was that there was no such deposit in bank account of the assessee, therefore, the facts are not clear. Moreover, the Ld. CIT(A) passed the impugned order exparte, he simply stated that on 15/10/2019 the assessee attended and the case was fixed for hearing on 25/10/2019, thereafter notice was issued on 06/11/2019 for hearing on 13/11/2019. However it is not brought on record to substantiate that the notice for hearing on 13/11/2019 was served upon the assessee. It is well settled that nobody should be condemned unheard, as per the maxim, “audi alteram partem”.

We, therefore, by keeping in view the principles of natural justice and peculiar facts of this case, deem it appropriate to set aside this case back to the file of 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.