VIVEK OUTSOURCING SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(1)(3), BANGALORE

Brief facts of the case are the assessee is engaged in the business of travel agency services and filed its return of income on 07.11.2017 admitting a total income of Rs.8,96,250/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS to examine “Significant Cash Deposits during the

On being aggrieved by the order of the learned AO, assessee filed an appeal before the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) observed that assessee has not satisfactorily explained the cash deposits and hence upheld the addition made by the AO by rejecting the appeal of the assessee.

On being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us by raising various grounds. The main contention of the learned AR is that the learned CIT(A) issued hearing notice dated 09.12.2025 fixing the date of hearing on 24.12.2025. However, order by learned CIT(A) was passed on 18.12.2025. He further submitted that the learned AO issued a show cause notice dated 18.12.2019 seeking compliance on 20.12.2019 notice thus by giving only 2 days’ time for compliance to the show cause notice. He therefore vehemently argued that assessee has not been provided sufficient opportunities before the Revenue authorities to substantiate the claim made by the assessee. He therefore prayed that the Assessment Order be set aside and the matter may be restored to the file of AO for denovo assessment.

Per contra, the learned DR relied on the order of Revenue authorities.

It is admitted fact that assessee was not given sufficient time to furnish various submissions before the learned AO for the show cause notice issued on 18.12.2019. The assessee was allowed only merely 2 days to furnish response to the show cause notice. Similarly, the learned CIT(A) has issued notice dated 09.12.2025 seeking compliance from the assessee on or before 24.12.2025. However, the learned CIT(A) hurriedly passed order on 18.12.2025. Notice issued by learned CIT(A) is reproduced below for reference:

In these facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that assessee was not provided sufficient time to respond to the notice while passing impugned order of assessment and without considering the submissions made by the assessee. We also note that the learned CIT(A) has also not adhered to timelines given to assessee, by passing the order hurriedly. The principle of audi alteram partem is the cornerstone of justice, ensuring that no person is condemned unheard. We therefore find that there has been breach of principle of natural justice to the assessee and therefore we deem it fit to restore the matter back to the learned AO for denovo assessment. Needless to say that assessee should be provided sufficient opportunity of being heard before framing the assessment by the learned AO. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.