SMT. PAMMI PRASAD,PATNA vs. I.T.O., WARD 1(2),, PATNA

Following grounds have been raised in this appeal: “1. For that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deciding the appeal ex-parte. 2. For that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the appellant was allowed sufficient opportunity of being heard, however, there was no compliance in response to the various notices issued for hearing. 3. For that the ld. CIT(A) has failed to bring on record any evidence or material indicating the dates on which the notices were issued/served and/or non-compliance made. 4. For that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deciding he appeal without giving proper and adequate opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 5. For that the order passed in violative of principles of equity, natural justice and fair play. 6. For that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.7,00,000/- on account of alleged receipt of x-ray machine.

Vide Ground Nos. 2 to 5, the main grievance o the assessee relates to the ex- parte order passed by the ld. CIT(A) without providing an opportunity of being heard.

Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 18.04.2013 showing income of Rs.8,97,850/- which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). In this case a survey was conducted in the premises of the assessee on 27.03.2012, therefore, the case was selected for scrutiny. The AO framed the assessment at an income of Rs.16,69,930/- by making the addition of Rs.7,00,000/- on account of estimated receipt from Digital X-ray, Rs.22,080/- out of the commission paid and Rs.50,000/- out of the remuneration paid to the director.

Now the assessee is in appeal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that no notice for hearing was served upon the assessee. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition made by the AO by passing the ex- parte order.

In his rival submissions, the ld. Sr. DR supported the orders of the authorities below.

I have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. In the present case, it is noticed that on the face of the impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) mentioned that none was present on behalf of the appellant (assessee) and the department. The ld. CIT(A) did not mention that any notice for hearing was issued and served upon the assessee. It is well settled that nobody should be condemned unheard as per the maxim “audi alteram partem”. We, therefore, considering the totality of the facts of the present case, 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.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. (Order Pronounced in the Court on16 /03/2018)