DEVENDRA SHARAD KUMAR DAMLE,DELHI vs. JCIT, RANGE-61, NEW DELHI

The case file reveals that there was no appearance on behalf of the assessee. Even on the date of hearing, none appeared on 2 behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment application was filed. In the absence of any representative from the side of assessee, we proceed to dispose of the appeal ex parte qua the assessee after considering the material on record and after hearing by the Learned DR.

Before us, at the outset, Learned DR submitted that the issue involved in both the appeals are identical. In view of the aforesaid submission of Learned DR, we for the sake of convenience proceed to dispose of both the appeals by a consolidated order but for the sake of reference refer to the facts for A.Y. 2007-08 in ITA No.161/Del/2018.

The relevant facts as culled from the material on records are as under :

AO has noted that assessee has treated to have received Rs.14 lac in A.Y. 2007-08 & 2008-09 in cash from Mrs. Chetna Verma. He was of the view that as per the provision of Section 269SS of the Act no person shall take or accept any loan or deposit or any specified sum, in excess of the limits prescribed in the provision in cash and if a person takes or accepts any loan or deposit in contravention of the provisions of Section 269SS of the Act, he shall be liable to pay penalty u/s 271D of the Act. He noted that since assessee had accepted loan/ deposit of Rs.28 lac (Rs.14 lac in A.Y. 2007-08 and Rs. 14 lac in A.Y. 2008-09 in cash), he was liable for penalty u/s 271D r.w.s 269SS of the Act.

We have heard the Learned DR and perused the materials available on record. The perusal of CIT(A) order reveals that CIT(A) has passed an ex parte order without deciding the issue on merits. Sub Section (6) of Section 250 of I. T. Act mandate the CIT(A) to state the points in dispute and thereafter assign the reasons in support of his conclusion. We are of the view that by dismissing the appeal without considering the issue on merits, Learned CIT(A) has failed to follow the mandate required in Sub Section (6) of Section 250 of the Act. Further it is also a well settled principle of natural justice that sufficient opportunity of hearing should be offered to the parties and no parties should be condemned unheard. In view of these facts, we set aside the impugned orders of CIT(A) dated 10.11.2017 and restore the issue to the file of CIT(A) for re-adjudication of the issues after granting sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee. In view of our decision to restore the issue to CIT(A), we are not adjudicating on merits the grounds raised by the assessee. Thus the grounds in both the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.