Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI H. S. SIDHU
ORDER This appeal is filed by the assessee against the Order dated 31.08.2018 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-I, Noida, relating to Assessment Year 2010-11 on the following grounds:-
The Id. CIT(A) has erred on facts and circumstances of the case in disallowing request for adjournment and passing ex-party order u/s 250 on irrelevant considerations of S.249(l)(a), S.282 of ITA read with provisions of CPC 1908 etc. and dismissing the appeal on merits on the ground that assessee has brought nothing on record to discharge the onus without addressing the Grounds of Appeal
1 and 2 to the assessee against which no evidence has been led either by AO or by CIT(A).
2. The acquisition of jurisdiction u/s 148 is contrary to law without compliance with the requirements and valid service of notice u/s 148.
3. Assessment made u/s 147/144 is without jurisdiction, contrary to law against the principles of natural justice made without granting proper opportunity to defend and on irrelevant considerations.
4. The AO has erred on facts and in law in making the addition of Rs.44,77,200/- on account of unexplained investment on non-financial family transaction.
5. The order of the A.O. as upheld by the learned CIT-A be declared as null and void ab initio, additions made by AO and upheld by Ld. CITA be deleted, and the income returned by the assessee be accepted as true as per law; or such other order as Your Honors may deem fit under the circumstances of the case be passed. 6. The appellant craves leave and sanction of the Hon’ble ITAT to file additional evidence, if so required for proper prosecution of the case, based on facts and circumstances, which has not been or could not be educed or filed before lower authorities either because proper and sufficient opportunity was not provided or because it was not solicited or its need was not appreciated.”
The assessee has filed this appeal on 06.03.2019. Registry issued RPAD to the assessee for 24.09.2019. In response to the same, assessee nor his authorized representative appeared nor filed any application for adjournment. The Bench adjourned the matter for 01.01.2020 and issued RPAD notice to the assessee on the address given by the assessee in Form No. 36. Again on 01.01.2020, assessee nor his authorized representative appear nor filed any application for adjournment. I am of the view that no useful purpose would be served to issue notice again and again to the assessee on the address given by the assessee in Form no. 36, therefore, I am deciding the appeal ex parte assessee, after hearing the learned DR.
I have gone through the orders passed by the Revenue authorities especially the impugned order passed by the learned First Appellate Authority dated 31.08.2018, I am of the view that Ld. CIT(A) has passed the ex parte impugned order without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee and also passed the non speaking order, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Therefore, I am cancelling the impugned order and setting aside the issues in dispute to the learned First Appellate Authority to decide the same afresh, as per law, after giving opportunity to the assessee. It is made clear that assessee will remove the defects as pointed out by the learned First Appellate Authority in the impugned order and thereafter learned First Appellate Authority will decide the issues in dispute as per law, after providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee.
In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 07/01/2020.