BADLEY SINGH,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO WARD - 1(5), GHAZIABAD

ORDER

PER R.K. PANDA, AM:

1. That the service of the notice issued u/s. 147 of the Income Tax Act 1961 suffers from severe defects as such the initiating of the proceedings of the case are void, abinitio and illegal.

2. The CIT(Appeals) erred in law by upholding the action of the Assessing Officer u/s 147 and framing the assessment order u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act 1961. The appellant has not concealed any Income chargeable to tax.

3. The learned CIT(Appeals) was unjustified and incorrect in not allowing sufficient opportunity to the appellant to file rejoinder in respect of the remand report as the notice fixing the date of hearing for 30.09.2019 was served on the assessee on 27.09.2019 and at that time counsel of the appellant was busy in completing tax audit reports to be filed by 30.09.2019.

4. That the learned CIT(Appeals) was unjustified and incorrect in upholding the addition of Rs 1618000/- made by the Assessing Officer as taxable income of the appellant.

5. That the action of the learned CIT(appeals) may be treated bad in law as the proceedings initiated u/s 148 is illegal and addition upheld by CIT (Appeals) may be deleted.

6. That the asseessee prays for leave to add, amend or vary any ground either before or at the time of hearing of appeal.”

5. I have heard the ld. DR and perused the record. I find, due to non- compliance to the statutory notices, the AO completed the assessment u/s 144/147 of the Act determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.16,18,000/- on the ground that the assessee could not substantiate the source of cash deposit of Rs.16,18,000/- in his savings bank account. Although certain details were filed before the CIT(A) in writing, however, in absence of sufficient details filed before her to substantiate the advance of Rs.5.5. lakh received against sale of property, Rs.1.5 lakh received from brother and 30% of the turnover of cash amounting to Rs.6.5 lakh and in absence of filing of complete copy of ITR-4, the ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. Since the authorized representative of the assessee could not appear before the CIT(A), the ld.CIT(A), in the ex parte order passed by her, upheld the validity of the reassessment proceedings and sustained the addition on merit. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, I deem it proper to restore the issue back to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate his case and decide the issue as per fact and law. The assessee is also hereby directed to appear before the ld.CIT(A) and explain his case without seeking any adjournment under any pretext failing which, the ld.CIT(A) is at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. I hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.