RAJENDRA SINGH,BULANDSHAHR vs. ITO, WARD-3(3), BULANDSHAHR

Facts of the case in brief are that the AO on the basis of AIR information issued notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the assessee. In response the assessee filed the return of income on 27.5.2016 declaring an income of Rs. 40,000/-. The AO, however made the addition of Rs. 3,13,170/- by observing that the assessee failed to explain the exact source of investment and also could not produce any supportive material. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the learned CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal by passing the ex parte order.

Now the assessee is in appeal. 4. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the learned CIT(A) passed an ex parte order without providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the matter may be restored to the learned CIT(A). In his rival submissions, the learned Sr. DR supported the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A). 5. 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 the learned CIT(A) mentioned in para 4.1 of the impugned order that the case was fixed for hearing on 19.3.2018 and the assessee filed adjournment application, the case was adjourned to 26.3.2018. However, it is not clear as to whether the said date of hearing was communicated to the assessee. I, therefore, deem it appropriate to remit this case back to the file of the learned CIT(A) to be decided afresh in accordance with law after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.