SAMEER PANDHARINATH DHURI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT , MUMBAI

The brief facts as culled out from the proceedings of authorities below are thatthe assessee is an individual did not file return of income for AY 2016-17. As per the information available on the website portal of the Income Tax Department, the assessee had made financial transaction i.e. purchase of immovable property of Rs. 1,40,32,375/-, salary of Rs.76,000/- and commissions of Rs.3,937/- during the previous year related to the assessment year under consideration. Therefore, a notice u/s.148 of the Act was issued on 11.03.2023. After that, the assessee had filed the return of income declaring a total income at Rs.1,52,980/-. On perusal of the submissions of the assessee, it was noticed that assessee has received credit from third persons to the tune ofRs.2,31,000/- but no supporting documents have been submitted. It is noticed that the assessee received fund from IHCC in India in the status of resident of India. Therefore, such salary receipts of Rs. 16,06,785/- from IHCC is clearly found taxable in India for the year under consideration. Accordingly, the AO completed the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act and assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs. 19,90,766/-. Page | 2 Sameer PandharinathDhuri 3. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred the appeal before Ld. CIT(A) on various grounds with respect to reopening of the assessment as well as alleged addition of Rs. 19,90,766/- as unexplained credit u/s 68 of the Act. The said appeal of the assessee was dismissed by Ld. CIT(A) on the ground that assessee has failed to pursue the case despite multiple opportunities given and no documentary or written submissions were filed before him.

Aggrieved by the impugned order, the assessee preferred the appeal before us. We have heard Ld. AR and Ld. DR and examined the record. At the very outset, Ld. AR submitted on behalf of the assessee that the impugned order has been passed ex-parte and the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to offer effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee and has dismissed the appeal in a hurried manner and as such the assessee was prevented from presenting its case before the Ld. CIT(A). Ld. AR further submitted that after filing of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), no notice has been received by the assessee and forthis reasons, the assessee could not pursue its case before the Ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal only for non prosecutionof the case, when there is no proof of 3 notices of various dates, were ever served upon the assessee, decided the appeal ex-parte and dismissed the appeal without deciding the issue on Page | 3 Sameer PandharinathDhuri meritand also without giving opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Hence, the impugned order suffers from illegality and resulted into miscarriage of justice and liable to be set aside. Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee be given proper opportunity of hearing and the matter be restored to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication of the case.

Ld. DR on the other hand supported the judgment of the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that effective opportunity of hearing was given to the assessee and there is no justification for non-appearance, hencethere is no merit in the appeal and same is liable to be dismissed.

We have considered the rival submissions and examined the record. On perusal of the finding and decision of Ld. CIT(A), it is noticed that 3 notices dated 20.12.2014, 06.01.2025 and 15.01.2025 were issued to the assessee, but no response was filed by the assessee. It is noticed that there is no proof of 3 notices of various dates were served upon the assessee. We are of the considered opinion that Ld. CIT(A) has not given effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee which is against the principle of natural justice. Section 250 sub section 2(a) of "the Act"which provides as under:

It is evident from the provision that the hearing to be given is not a formality but an effective hearing is sine qua non for the purpose of upholding the principal of natural justice. It is thus evident from the contents of the impugned order that no effective opportunity of hearing has been given by the Ld. CIT(A) while passing the impugned order.

For these reasons, we are of the considered opinion that matter needs to be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT (A) for giving effective hearing to the assessee who shall present its case before the Ld. CIT(A) within 60 days. The impugned order is accordingly set aside and appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in above terms.

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