Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR&
PER Ms. MADHUMITA ROY - JM: The instant appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 20.10.2016 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 4, Ahmadabad arising out of the order dated 24.03.2015 passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward – 4(2)(2), Ahmedabad under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as to ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year 2012-
The sole grievance of the assessee is this that the date of hearing was fixed on 04.10.2016 but on the said date the Learned CIT(A) was on leave and no fresh date of hearing was given prior to finalisation of order passed by the Shri Jayantibhai Babaldas Prajapati vs. ITO Assessment Year 2012-13 Learned CIT(A). The Learned CIT(A) by and under the said ex-parte order confirmed the addition u/s 69C of the Act of Rs.89,77,242/- made by the Learned AO.
The brief facts leading to this case is this that the assessee, an individual filed its return of income on 12.12.2012 declaring total income of Rs.6,62,730/- which was finalized by the Learned AO by making addition on undisclosed income of the assessee from undisclosed sources to the tune of Rs.84,97,242/- which was, in turn, confirmed by the Learned CIT(A). It appears from the records that on 8 occasion the matter was listed before the Learned CIT(A) for hearing out of which 5 occasions authorized representative of the assessee appeared and sought for adjournment. However, in 3 occasions, the assessee was not been able to represent himself. But on 04.10.2016 though the matter was fixed for hearing by the Learned CIT(A) no hearing took place since the Learned CIT(A) was on leave. However, as none could record the present on behalf of the assessee the matter was found to be ex-parte. It is relevant to mention that no further date was fixed for hearing before the matter was finalized by the Learned CIT(A) as the ground taken by the Learned AR.
However, the Learned DR rely upon the order passed by the authorities below and failed to controvert such contention of the Learned AR that the Learned CIT(A) was on leave on 04/10/2016 and assessee was not been able to represent himself when no hearing took place on that particular date. The Learned AR prays for setting aside the issue to authorities below. Assessment Year 2012-13
Having heard the respective parties, regard to the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the considered view that though it is a fact that adjournment were sought for on number of occasions by the assessee before the Learned CIT(A) ultimately, the day when the order was passed, hearing could not be taken place as he was on leave. Such submission made by the Learned AR seems to be genuine since not controverted by the Learned DR before us.
In that view of the matter, we find sufficient reason to give another opportunity of being heard to the assessee for ends of justice. We thus find it fit and proper to set aside the issue to the file of the Learned CIT(A) to decide the issue afresh upon giving opportunity of hearing to the assessee and upon taking into consideration the evidence on record and also the evidences which the assessee may choose to file at the time of hearing of the appeal. Hence, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 25/06/2019 ( PRAMOD KUMAR ) ( Ms. MADHUMITA ROY ) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 25/06/2019 Assessment Year 2012-13 आदेश क" ""त"ल"प अ"े"षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ" / The Appellant
""यथ" / The Respondent. 3. संबं"धत आयकर आयु"त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु"त(अपील) / The CIT(A)-4, Ahmedabad.
"वभागीय ""त"न"ध, आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड" फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स"या"पत ""त //// उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.