SHAID KHAN,MURADNAGAR vs. DCIT CIRCLE-62(1), NEW DELHI

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 25.01.2019 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-38, Delhi relating to Assessment Year 2015-16.

The relevant facts as culled from the material on records are as under :

Assessee is an individual stated to be engaged in the business of job work and filed his return of income for A.Y. 2015- 16 on 28.07.2016 declaring income at Rs.45,67,940/-. The case was selected for “Limited Scrutiny” under “CASS” and notices u/s 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act was issued and served upon the assessee. Thereafter assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 20.12.2017 and the total income was determined at Rs.58,25,970/- u/s 143(3) of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before CIT(A) who vide order dated 25.01.2019 in Appeal No.207/2018-19 dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), assessee is now in appeal and has raised the following grounds: “The appellant pray that the appeal may be admitted and order may be passed rendering justice to appellant on the following grounds: a. An opportunity of being heard was not given to the assessee. As mentioned in the order of CIT(A), 2 notices were issued to the assesee dated 02.01.2019 and 18.01.2019 by Indian Post, however the same were not received by the assessee. b. There should be some reasonable basis to disallow the expenses. The additions to the return of income were made on the ad-hoc basis, however there is no evidence on record to prove that any part of cash has flown back to the appellant. As mentioned in the order of CIT(A), the burden of proof is always on the assessee who makes the claim. The assessee had given the copy of ledger account and also as a matter of proof, the books of the accounts were duly certified by the tax auditor. c. Reference of case DCIT – 4(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Metallic (India) Pvt. Ltd.

Before us, Learned DR fairly submitted that CIT(A) has not disposed of the appeals of the assessee on merits but however submitted that since there was no appearance by assessee before CIT(A), CIT(A) has rightly dismissed the appeals of the assessee. He thus supported the order of CIT(A).

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The perusal of CIT(A) order reveals that CIT(A) has passed an ex parte order without deciding the issue on merits. Sub Section (6) of Section 250 of I. T. Act mandate the CIT(A) to state the points in dispute and thereafter assign the reasons in support of his conclusion. We are of the view that by dismissing the appeal without considering the issue on merits, Learned CIT(A) has failed to follow the mandate required in Sub Section (6) of Section 250 of the Act. Further it is also a well settled principle of natural justice that sufficient opportunity of hearing should be offered to the parties and no parties should be condemned unheard. In view of these facts, we set aside the impugned order of CIT(A) dated 25.01.2019 and restore the issue to the file of CIT(A) for re-adjudication of the issues after granting sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Assessee is also directed to furnish the details called for by the lower authorities. In view of our decision to restore the issue to CIT(A), we are not adjudicating on merits the grounds raised by the assessee. Thus the ground of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.