KISHORE KUMAR JAIN,ALIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 4.1.3,ALIGARH, ALIGARH

That the learned CIT(A) erred in law in passing the impugned order in violation of section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by not passing a speaking order and by failing to record proper reasons for confirming the addition. 4. That the assessment order passed under section 144 read with section 147 is bad in law as the learned Assessing Officer relied upon third party information and alleged statements without affording opportunity to the appellant to confront or cross examine such third parties. 5. That the learned CIT(A) and the learned Assessing Officer erred in law and on facts in assuming that the appellant incurred unexplained expenditure of Rs 6,05,250/- and in making addition under section 69C without any direct or corroborative evidence. 6. That the authorities below failed to appreciate that mere cash withdrawals from bank account cannot be presumed to have been utilised for alleged payment in absence of any evidence establishing nexus between withdrawals and alleged expenditure. 7. That the addition made under section 69C is arbitrary, illegal and bad in law and is liable to be deleted.” 2. At the time of hearing, Id. AR of the assessee brought to any notice that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 144/147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "Act") was passed ex-parte for the reasons that assessee had not made any compliance for the various statutory notices issued by him. Accordingly, assessment was completed u/s 144 of the Act. Further, he submitted that aggrieved with the above order, the assessee preferred an appeal before NFAC. However, even before Ld. CIT (Appeals) the assessee has not complied to various notices issued for hearing, neither filed any reply. Due to communication gap with the counsel, failed to follow up the same from his counsel. Accordingly, he prayed that the appeal may be remitted back to the Assessing Officer to re-do the assessment with proper facts available on record.

On the other hand, Ld. DR accepted the fact that there is no compliance from the assessee and he has no objection to remit the issue back to the file of Assessing Officer.

Considered the rival submissions and the material placed on record. I observed that the assessment order was passed due to non compliance on the part of the assessee as well as before first appellate authority also accordingly, Ld. CIT(Appeals) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non compliance. Considering the peculiar fact on record, in my considered view the assessee may be given one more opportunity of being heard. Therefore I am inclined to remit this issue back to the file of Assessing Officer to re do assessment as per law after giving proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.