SHRI SEWA SINGH ,KHARAR vs. ITO, W-6(4), MOHALI

Following grounds have been raised in this appeal:

That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law as well as on facts in dismissing the appeal ex-parte in limine which is arbitrary and unjustified.

2. That the Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in reopening the assessment by issuance of notice u/s 148 in as much as there has been no escapement of income and non-compliance with the mandatory statutory requirements and as such the assessment framed which has been upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is illegal, arbitrary and unjustified. 3. Without prejudice to the above, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law as on facts in upholding the addition of Rs. 62,80,000/- which is arbitrary and unjustified.

That the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous, arbitrary, opposed to the facts of the case and thus untenable.

The main grievance of the assessee in this appeal relates to the ex-parte order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) without giving proper and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee had deposited cash amounting to Rs. 12,80,000/- in his Punjab National Bank Account No. 02660001000095861 in the F.Y. 2009-10 relevant to A.Y. 2010-11. The A.O. observed that the assessee had not filed his return of income for the assessment year 2010-11, therefore the sources of cash deposits of Rs. 62,80,000/- was unexplained. The A.O. reopened the assessment proceeding for the A.Y. 2010- 11 by issuing notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’). Since there was no compliance to the notice issued by the A.O. the assessment order was passed ex-parte and the assessment was framed at an income of Rs. 64,19,823/- by treating the amount of Rs. 62,80,000/- as unexplained income earned from undisclosed sources.

Now the assessee is in appeal.

Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that no notice for hearing was served upon the assessee therefore the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the penalty levied by the A.O. by passing the ex-parte order.

In his rival submissions the Ld. DR supported the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A).

We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. In the present case nothing is brought on record to substantiate that the notice for hearing although claimed to be sent by speed post was 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 principle of natural justice, deem it appropriate to set aside this case back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) 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.