AMITESH RANJAN,PATNA vs. I.T.O., WARD-4(1), PATNA

Following grounds have been raised in this appeal: “1. For that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)- 2, Patna, [‘the CIT(A)’] erred on facts and in law in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant ex-parte by confirming the assessment order passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Patna. (‘the AO’), assessing the appellant under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, (‘the Act) at an income of Rs.50,06,010/-, as against returned income of Rs.8,88,990/-.

Vide Ground Nos.1, 2 & 6, the grievance of the assessee relates to the dismissal of the appeal ex-parte without going in the merits of the case and not allowing opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee e-filed the return of income on 13.08.2013 declaring an income of Rs.8,88,990/-. Later on, the case was selected for scrutiny. The AO made the addition of Rs.21,55,000/- on account of gift received

Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal in limine for non-prosecution.

Now the assessee is in appeal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that no notice of hearing was received by the assessee as alleged by the ld. CIT(A) and when the last notice dated 28.12.2016 was issued and received by the assessee, a request was made to adjourn the case for second week of the January but the ld. CIT(A) without communicating the rejection of the application to the assessee, dismissed the appeal in limine without discussing the appeal on merit.

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

We have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on the record. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the ld. CIT(A) did not adjudicate the issues on merit and dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine. He has also not given the reasons for rejecting the request of the assessee for adjournment. In our opinion, a due and reasonable opportunity of being heard had not been afforded by the ld. CIT(A). 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 these cases back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to be adjudicated afresh in accordance

Since, we have decided the appeal of the assessee, therefore, the Stay Application moved by the assessee becomes infructuous. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and Stay Application is dismissed as infructuous. (Order Pronounced in the Court on 15/03/2018)