HIMLAND CONSTRUCTIONS ENGG.,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO WARD 4, PATIALA

That the impugned order is bad both on facts and law.

That the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly and illegally upheld the additions of Rs 58,81,734/- made by the AO by passing an ex-parte order without allowing the appellant an opportunity of being heard against the principle of natural justice. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the assessment order made by the Ld. AO ignoring the facts and circumstances of the case by passing an ex-parte order in a mechanical manner. Further the Ld CIT(A) fails to assure the service of notices on the appellant before proceeding to pass an ex- parte order. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs.58,81,734/- against the facts and circumstances of the case after ignoring that the appellant has filed the ITR under the deeming fiction of section 44AD and has declared the receipts in the ITR. 5. That the Ld. CIT(A) wrongly and illegally confirmed an invalid assessment order passed by the Ld. AO as the impugned order is passed without generating DIN. 6. That the Appellant craves permission to add, amend, elucidate any ground of appeal at the time of hearing.

At the very outset, ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted before the Bench that the order passed by the Assessing Officer is an ex-parte order passed u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). He further submitted that the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) is also an ex-parte order. His main argument was that although the Assessee could not comply with the notices as the notices were not served upon the Assessee but the Ld. CIT(A) did not pass the order on merit on the basis of material available on record. He simply dismissed the appeal for non-compliance by the Assessee.

The ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below.

We have considered the arguments of the ld. Counsel for the Assessee as well as that of the ld. DR. We find that the order passed by the CIT(A) is an ex-parte order without getting any written submissions and documents available on record. The Ld. CIT(A) has also dismissed the appeal without discussing anything on merit on the basis of material available on record. The contention of the 188-Chd-2024 Himland Constructions Engg., Chandigarh 4 Counsel of the Assessee is that notices were not served and, therefore, no compliance was made. In any case, in the fitness of things and keeping in view the natural justice to the Assessee, the matter should be decided on merit. Accordingly, we remand this case back to the CIT(A) for adjudication afresh on merit, in accordance with law, on affording due and adequate opportunity of hearing to the Assessee. The Assessee, no doubt, shall cooperate in the fresh proceedings before the CIT(A). All pleas available under the law shall remain so available to the assessee. Ordered accordingly. The appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.