BRAHAMADATTA SHARMA,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 1(5), GHAZIABAD

Facts narrated by the revenue authorities are not disputed by both the parties, hence, the same are not repeated here for the sake of brevity.

During the hearing, Ld. counsel for the assessee has stated that lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in passing the ex-parte orders and that too without providing adequate opportunity of being heard and without observing the principle of natural justice. In support of these contentions, assessee has filed a Paper Book containing pages 1-13 in which he has attached the affidavit by authorised representative CA Pramod Singahal; PAN of the assessee; copy of letter to AO requesting copy of assessment order dated 12.5.2017; copy of letter to AO requesting copy of penalty order dated 01.5.2017; copies of medical certificate; copies of Form No. 35 for appeal filed before Ld. CIT(A) against the assessment order; copies of Form No. 35 for appeal filed before Ld. CIT(A) against the order u/s. 271(1)(c) and stated that the same were filed before the lower authorities, but were not considered by them. Therefore, he requested that the issues in dispute may be remitted back to the file of the AO to decide the same afresh, as per law after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and consider all the documents/evidences of the assessee.

On the other hand, Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and stated that Ld. CIT(A) has given various opportunities to the assessee, but the assessee remained non-cooperative and as a result thereof, the Ld. CIT(A) has no option but to dismiss the appeal of the assessee. But he has no objection for setting aside the issues in dispute to the file of the AO for deciding the same afresh.

I have heard both the parties and perused the records as well as the relevant provisions of law, I am of the view that there is no doubt that assessee remained non-cooperative before the lower authorities and therefore, Ld. CIT(A) has passed the exparte order, without discussing in detail the facts and circumstance of the case and also did not deal the issue on merit and passed a non-speaking order, which in my opinion, is not in accordance with the principles of natural justice and it is an erroneous approach. After reading Section 250(6) of the Act, I am also of the considered view that Assessee’s case should be decided on merits, which the Ld. CIT(A) has not done. However, it is a settled law that even an administrative order has to be speaking one. In this regard, I draw support from Hon’ble Apex Court in the case M/s Sahara India (Farms)

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes.