Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed a miscellaneous application to recall an earlier order, stating that their case was heard along with other matters and an important issue regarding cash deposits was not adjudicated. Separately, in the main appeal, the assessee argued that the CIT(A) decided the appeal ex-parte without providing an opportunity to be heard.
Held
The Tribunal allowed the miscellaneous application to recall the order due to non-adjudication of the cash deposit issue. In the main appeal, the Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deciding the appeal ex-parte and allowed the appeal to be decided afresh on merits.
Key Issues
Whether the Tribunal should recall an order when a ground was not adjudicated? Whether the CIT(A) correctly decided an appeal ex-parte without granting an opportunity of being heard to the assessee?
Sections Cited
144, 147, 69A, 144/147
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “G”, NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN & SHRI VIMAL KUMAR
(Assessment Year : 2012-13) Pawan Kumar Jain, vs. ITO, Ward 38 (8), C-88, Prashant Vihar, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 085. (PAN: ACXPJ0814C) (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT/ASSESSEE BY : Ms. Chandrima Choudhary, Advocate REVENUE BY : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 30.05.2025 Date of Order : 30.05.2025 O R D E R
PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :
This misc. application is filed by the Applicant/Assessee against the order of the Tribunal in 28.02.2022 for Assessment Year 2012-13 for recalling of the said order.
At the outset, ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the assessee filed the appeal before ITAT, Bench-G vide 28.02.2022, However, during the hearing, 2 MA No.136/Del/2022 and the assessee’s case was erroneously called up with the combined hearing on the issue of allowability of contribution received from Employees towards ESI and EPF. He further submitted that the assessee’s case is based on the issue of cash deposits amounting to Rs.8,16,000/-. Therefore, he requested that the matter may be recalled and decide afresh.
Ld. DR of the Revenue could not controvert the aforesaid proposition made by the ld. AR o the assessee.
After considering the submissions of both the sides, we observed that the Bench has not adjudicated the issue of case deposits. Non-adjudication of the ground is mistake apparent on record. Therefore, we are inclined to allow the misc. application and recall the matter.
Further, we also take up the appeal being with the consent of both the parties as under.
At the outset, ld. AR submitted that in this case, the assessment was concluded at an income of Rs.18,16,000/- vide order dated 21.11.2019 passed under section 144/147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) by making the addition of Rs.18,16,000/- on account of alleged unexplained money in form of cash deposited in his bank account under Section 69A. He submitted that aggrieved with the said addition, the assessee has filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). During the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition made the AO and dismissed the assessee’s appeal 3 MA No.136/Del/2022 and without providing any reasonable opportunity of being heard. Accordingly, he pleaded that the matter may be restored back to the ld. CIT (A) to decide the grounds afresh on merits.
On the other hand, ld. DR of the Revenue did not have any objection of remitting the matter back to ld. CIT (A).
Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We observed that the ld. CIT (A) decided the assessee’s appeal ex-parte. In our considered view and in the interest of justice, assessee should be given one more opportunity of being heard on merit. Therefore, we remit the file back to the ld. CIT (A) to decide the issues on merit as per law and also to give an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We also direct assessee to make proper submissions and appear before the ld.CIT (A) on the date of hearing and cooperate with the tax authorities. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.