PYARE LAL AND SONS JEWELLERS,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CC-26, DELHI, NEW DELHI

By this common order, we propose to decide the ITA Nos. 2524, 2525 & 2526/Del/2026 as the parties are same and factual matrix is also same and in order to avoid the multiplicity of decision, the same are being disposed off

Facts in brief are that the assessee filed return of income on 19.10.2019 declaring total income of Rs.54,700/- for A.Y. 2019-20. A search & seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was carried out in the group of Sh. Rupesh Kumar Batra, Aditya Kumar Jha & Others on 10.10.2021. The case was centralized u/s 127 of the Act by PCIT-10, New Delhi vide order dated 11.02.2022. The case of the assessee was reopened u/s 148 of the Act with the approval of Pr. CIT(Central)-03, Delhi by issuing notice u/s 148 dated 31.08.2022. Subsequently, notice u/s 132 of the Act was issued alongwith questionnaire. During the course of search proceedings, it was noticed that the assessee has claimed purchases from M/s SS Impex, M/s SRD Impex, M/s RD Impex, M/s Durga Traders, M/s Hariom Traders and others mentioned in para 11.1 of the order and the said entities were allegedly indulged in issuing bogus bills. Accordingly, to verify the purchases of the assessee in respect of these parties, notice u/s 133(6) of the Act was issued to these parties on 17.03.2024. In response to the said notice, M/s Hariom Traders filed the confirmation alongwith documents. It was also observed from the statement of Mr. Manoj Mangla that no physical movement and delivery of goods happened in the course of transactions undertaken by him and

Aggrieved by the said assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who has dismissed the same ex-parte by passing the impugned order.

We have heard the ld. AR and the ld. DR. The ld. AR at the very outset submitted that the impugned order has been passed without giving effective opportunity of hearing which has resulted into miscarriage of justice and prayed for remitting the file to the ld. CIT(A) for deciding the same afresh after giving effective opportunity of hearing. The ld. DR on the other hand opposed the arguments stating that various notices were issued by the ld. CIT(A) and the assessee has failed to made any submissions and deliberately suffered the impugned ex-parte order and as such prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

We have considered the rival submissions and examined the record. In order to appreciate the arguments of the ld. AR

Section 250(2)(a) lays down as under: “250(2) The following shall have the right to be heard at the hearing of the appeal- (a) the appellant, either in person or by an authorized representative;”

In view of the above facts and circumstances, it is evident that the impugned order has been passed without effective hearing and principle of natural justice has not been followed For these reasons, the impugned order is not maintainable and accordingly set aside. The end of justice shall be met in case the matter is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the issue afresh by affording an effective opportunity of hearing and considering the submissions to be made by the appellant/assessee. The assessee/appellant is also directed to make the necessary submissions/ detailed material before the Ld. CIT(A) within the period of 60 days of this order.

Since, the factual matrix and the decision of the ld. CIT(A) is identical and similar in this appeal vis-à-vis ITA No. 2524/Del/2026, hence, the findings of the Tribunal in ITA No. 2524/Del/2026 shall apply mutatis mutandis in ITA Nos.2524, 2525 & 2526/Del/2026 for A.Ys. 2019-20, 2021-22 & 2022-23 also.