LAL CHAND,CHANDIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD SANGRUR, PUNJAB

It emerges that Ld. AO made impugned additions of bank deposits in the hands of the assessee though the assessee maintained that the accounts belonged to the others and the case was handled by Enforcement Directorate and also under Benami Act. However, Ld. AO rejected the explanation of the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) did not admit the delay for want of delay and also confirm the assessment on merits. During first appeal, the assessee stated that he was an agriculturist by profession and also engaged in operating a motor vehicle which fetched him certain income. However, in the absence of any verifiable evidences, Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the assessment against which the assessee is in further appeal before us. The Ld. AR has sought another opportunity of hearing before lower authorities which has been opposed by Ld. Sr. DR.

Keeping in mind the principles of natural justice and considering the possibility of communication gaps during faceless regime, we deem it fit to afford another opportunity of hearing to the assessee to substantiate its case before Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to the assessee to plead and prove its case forthwith. The delay before Ld. CIT(A) stand condoned.