ALOK KUMAR,GAYA vs. I.T.O., WARD-1, GAYA

The main grievance of the assessee vide Ground No. 2 relates to the dismissal of the appeal without providing opportunity of being heard.

Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 08.10.2010 showing total income of Rs.4,99,210/-. Later on, the case was selected for scrutiny. The AO made the addition of Rs.13,50,533/- on account of disallowance of carriage inward by invoking the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and also made the addition of Rs.30,000/- out of the expenses for want of proper bills and vouchers. Accordingly, income was assessed at Rs.18,79,740/-.

Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the ld. CIT(A) who passed the ex-parte order and sustained the additions/disallowances made by the AO.

In his rival submissions, the ld. Sr. DR supported the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A).

I have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through material available on record. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the ld. CIT(A) passed the impugned order ex-parte without affording any opportunity of being heard to the assessee which is evident from the face of the impugned order wherein the ld. CIT(A) mentioned that none was present for the appellant assessee or the department. He had also not mentioned in the impugned order that the 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”. I, 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 on 16 /03/2018)