ADITYA CHANDRA JHA,THANE vs. DDIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION , NOIDA

Ground of appeal are as under :-

The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) ought to have considered the fact that the notice u/s 148 is not valid as the same was not served on the appellant herein and was not issued by the appropriate authority.

The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) ought to have provided further opportunity before the appeal is decided.

The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) ought to have found that no income escaped assessment so as to enable the Assessing Officer to initiate proceedings u/s 148 of the I.T.Act.

The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in 5 confirming the addition made of Rs.5.94 crores as representing unexplained investment u/s 69 of the I.T. Act.

The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) ought to have considered the fact that the appellant had required sources and that the Assessing officer is not justified in making addition of Rs.5.94 crores.

The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) ought to have also considered the fact that the Assessing officer did not provide proper opportunity to explain the sources of investment made.

The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) ought to have decided the appeal on merits of the case.

The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in 9 confirming the action of the Assessing officer in making addition of Rs.4,41,838/- as income from other sources.

The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming levy of interest u/s 234A and 234B of the I.T. Act.

Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing.”

At the very outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee brought it to the notice of the Bench that the assessment order in this case by the Assessing Officer has been passed u/s.147/144 of the Act ex-parte and the Ld. CIT(A) also dismissed the appeal ex-parte on the ground of non- prosecution without examining the merits of the case and without discussing materials already available on record.

Per contra, the Ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below.

We have considered the facts and findings given by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order and Ld. CIT(A) in the appellate order. We find that the assessment was completed ex-parte u/s.144 of the Act and the Ld. CIT(A) also dismissed the appeal ex-parte for non-prosecution. During proceedings before us the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that notices issued by both the Assessing Officer as well as the Ld. CIT(A) were not received by the assessee in time that was the main reason for non- compliance before the lower authorities.

After hearing both the parties we are of this considered view that in order to provide natural justice to the assessee it is important to give another opportunity to the assessee to file all the necessary papers and details before the lower authorities. Accordingly, the case is remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer for denovo assessment. Needless to say that the Assessing Officer will give notices and adequate opportunities to the assessee as required under law and the assessee is also directed to cooperate with the revenue and will not take unnecessary adjournments. The assessee will have to submit all the necessary papers/ details etc before the AO for the assessment.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.