Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
आदेश/Order
PER N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT
This is an appeal by the Assessee against the order dt. 17/08/2018 of Ld. CIT(A)-1, Ludhiana.
In the present appeal, the only grievance of the assessee is that the appeal has been decided by the Ld. CIT(A) without giving an opportunity of being heard.
Facts of the case in brief are that the A.O. on the basis of the information received from DIT Investigation Ludhiana that the assessee had made deposit of Rs. 1,12,90,686/- in her bank account maintained with HSBC Bank, Ludhiana and had not offered any explanation to the aforesaid credit entries, issued the notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) on 30/03/2016 after recording the reasons under section 147 of the Act. In response the assessee furnished the return of income vide letter dt. 17/08/2016 showing interest income of Rs. 10,630/- and agricultural income of Rs. 90,000/-. However the assessment was framed by the A.O. at an income of Rs. 2,76,14,820/- and the agriculture income of Rs. 90,000/- by making the various additions.
Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee by passing an ex-parte order.
Now the assessee is in appeal.
Ld. Counsel for the Assessee drew our attention towards para 2 of the impugned order and stated that Ld. CIT(A) passed the impugned order without giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. He requested to set aside this case to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to be decided on merits after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In his rival submissions the Ld. CIT DR strongly supported the order of the authorities below but could not controvert the aforesaid contention of the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee.
We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. In the present case it is noticed that the Ld. CIT(A) passed the impugned order ex-parte by observing in para 2 of the impugned order as under:
When the aforesaid appeal was called out for hearing, the appellant chose to Seek repeated adjournments on flimsy grounds. The request of the appellant for adjournments on many occasions [as many as 25 as borne out of the appellate records] was considered for the sake of fairness and natural justice and the case was fixed for hearing on subsequent dates. On 08/08/2018, the appellant was represented by her husband, Shri Amritpal Singh who again sought adjournment. Hearing of appeal in Shri Amritpal Singh's own case for the A.Y.2009-10 was also seen to have been procrastinated by repeated requests for adjournments without any valid grounds. The husband of the appellant, Shri Amritpal Singh was categorically informed that no further adjournment shall be granted and the case was finally fixed for hearing on 16/08/2018. However, on 16/08/2018, the Authorised Representative of the appellant attended and again sought adjournment on the ground that the appellant requires more time to prepare and plead the case. Considering this request to be a mere pretext to delay the adjudication of the instant appeal, the request for adjournment was rejected and it was made clear to the Authorised Representative that no further adjournment shall be granted and that the case shall be decided on merit on the basis of the records available on the appellate folder, without any further reference to the appellant. The assessment proceedings was also plagued by non-cooperation on the part of the appellant, as is evident from the impugned order of assessment. The delay in filing the instant appeal was also not explained with necessary evidence of the appellant being prevented by reasonable cause in not adhering to the limitation period of 30 days as mandated by section 249 of the Act. However, for the sake of fairness and natural justice, the appellant's contention that she was prevented by reasonable cause of hospitalisation and bedrest during the relevant period is accepted and the appeal is admitted for adjudication, albeit ex parte.
8.1 From the aforesaid observations of the Ld. CIT(A)it is not in dispute that the impugned order was passed ex-parte. It is well settled that nobody should be condemned, unheard as per the maxim, “audi alteram pertem”. We therefore by keeping in view the principles of natural justice deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and the case is remanded back to the file of the Ld.
CIT(A) to be adjudicated afresh in accordance with law after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
(Order pronounced in the open Court on 26/08/2019 )
Sd/- Sd/- संजय गग� एन.के.सैनी, (SANJAY GARG ) ( N.K. SAINI) �या�यक सद�य/ Judicial Member उपा�य� / VICE PRESIDENT AG Date: 26/08/2019
आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/ Copy of the order forwarded to :
अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant 2. ��यथ�/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयु�त/ CIT 4. आयकर आयु�त (अपील)/ The CIT(A) 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य आ�धकरण, च�डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. गाड� फाईल/ Guard File
आदेशानुसार/ By order, सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar