SHRI JAGDIP SINGH ,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFICER, WARD IV(3), JALANDHAR

Facts of the case in brief are that the AO on the basis of information received that the assessee had deposited an amount of Rs.26,00,000/- i.e. Rs.10,00,000/- in Insurance policy and Rs.16,00,000/- in FDR with PNB Bank Allawalpur, issued a notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to call for the return of income. Since, the assessee did not furnish any return, the AO made the addition of Rs.20,00,000/-

Now the assessee is in appeal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that no opportunity of being heard was provided by the ld. CIT(A) and that the assessee attended on 20.07.2017 and requested the adjournment till 16.08.2017 but the date of adjournment was not communicated to the assessee. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in observing that sufficient opportunity of being heard was provided to the assessee.

In his rival submissions, the ld. DR supported the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A).

We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by passing an ex-parte order. However, it is not clear as to whether the date fixed or hearing vide issuance of notice dated 16.08.2017 was communicated to the assessee because at para 3 the ld. CIT(A) himself left the column blank which was relating to the date of hearing fixed, which clearly shows that no date of hearing was communicated to the assessee. It is well settled that nobody should be condemned unheard as per the maxim “audi alteram partem”. We, therefore, by keeping in view the principles of natural justice, deem it appropriate to set aside this case 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.