PRADEEP VERMA,MORADABAD vs. ITO WARD 1(1), MORADABAD

At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the order of ld. First Appellate Authority deserves to be set-aside as the same has been passed without giving adequate opportunity of being heard. It was submitted that the assessee is a salaried individual and during the year under consideration had executed and agreement for sale of his property and that in furtherance of this agreement, the buyer had deposited cash of Rs.80,81,923/- into the bank account of the assessee. The case was selected for investigation of this transaction. 3. Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 4. We have noted that the order of Ld. CIT(A) is indeed based upon no compliance by the assessee to the statutory notices. We have also noted that the Ld. AO has also drawn his conclusions in view of reported deficient compliance by the assessee. We are however conscious of the fact that no appellant benefits by non-prosecution of its case. Be that as it may be, we are of the view that the matter deserves to be remitted back to the ld. AO for re-adjudication de novo. Accordingly, we set-aside the order of the lower authorities and remit the matter back to the file of the ld. AO for assessment de novo in accordance with law and by way of passing a speaking order. The Ld. AO shall give opportunities of being heard to the assessee and it shall be bounden upon the assessee to comply with the notices issued by the Ld. AO Any non-compliance on the part of the assessee can be adversely viewed. The decision to remit it back to the Ld. AO is taken in view of the fact that an Assessing Officer is the fulcrum of assessment proceedings. He possess the first right and responsibilities to examine facts of a case before