RAVINDER KUMAR BAJWA,YAMUNANAGAR vs. ITO, W-3, YAMUNANAGAR

Following grounds has been raised in this appeal:

That the CIT(A) has erred in passing impugned order as the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity of being heard citing the notice for hearing was not duly served on the assessee.

2. That the CIT(A) erred in passing the order dated 28/12/2018 in appeal of the appellant without fully discussing the contentions and therefore, order is bad in law as it has been passed with a prejudiced mind. 3. That the CIT(A) as well as the Assessing Officer erred in holding that investment made by the appellant is fully from undisclosed sources. 4. That the CIT(A) as well as the Assessing Officer has erred in calculating the amount of investment made was in intraday trading.

Facts of the case in brief are that the A.O. in the assessment order dt. 20/12/2017 passed under section 144 r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) mentioned that as per the AIR information the assessee had made the investment of Rs. 31,30,264/- in sales / purchase of share transactions as aginst the return of income of Rs. 1,44,000/- filed for the relevant year. The A.O. framed the assessment exparte at an income of Rs. 29,86,164/-.

Now the assessee is in appeal.

Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that neither the A.O. nor the Ld. CIT(A) had given the opportunity of being heard to the assessee to explain his case. He requested to remand this case back to the file of the A.O. by keeping in view the principles of natural justice.

In his rival submissions the Ld. DR although supported the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) 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 A.O. as well as the Ld. CIT(A) passed their respective orders exparte. Ld. CIT(A) admitted that the notice issued for hearing was returned undelivered. The A.O. also has not brought any material on record to substantiate 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 principle 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.