DR. SUBODH KUMAR GOEL,FARIDABAD vs. ACIT, FARIDABAD

The appellant, Dr. Subodh Kumar Goel, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the assessee’) by filing the present appeal, sought to set aside the impugned order dated 11.09.2015 passed by Ld. CIT (Appeals)-3, Gurgaon qua the assessment year 2009-10 on the grounds inter alia that:- “1. That the Learned Assessing Officer as well as Learned CIT (Appeal)-3, Gurgaon has erred while adding / upholding the addition of Rs.1,62,292/- to the declared income, inspite of the fact that the addition in question was explained in the course of assessment proceedings.

Briefly stated the facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy at hand are : Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.1,62,292/- (Rs.1,03,100/- + Rs.59,192/-) on account of unexplained cash seized during the search and seizure operation at the residential premises of the assessee and from his locker and unexplained investment in the share application money of Rs.15,00,000/- in M/s. Pulkeet Engg. Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Birla Sunlife and HDFC Standard Life Insurance as the assessee has failed to substantiate the manner in which total disclosure was made during the recording of the statement u/s 132 (4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and thereby assessed the total income at Rs.53,38,780/-.

Assessee carried the matter by way of appeal before the ld. CIT (A) who has dismissed the appeal. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee has come up before the Tribunal by way of filing the present appeal.

We have heard the ld. Authorized Representatives of the parties to the appeal, gone through the documents relied upon and orders passed by the revenue authorities below in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case.

Bare perusal of the impugned order passed by ld. CIT (A) shows that the ld. CIT (A) has first time issued the notice to the assessee on 17.06.2015 then on 07.08.2015 and then on 03.09.2015, but without explaining the fate of the notice, whether the same was delivered or received back undelivered to the assessee, proceeded to decide the appeal ex-parte. From the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that ld. CIT (A) has decided the appeal within less than 3 months in haste without providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Consequently, impugned order is set aside and file is restored back to the ld. CIT (A) to decide afresh after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

Resultantly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open court on this 17th day of September, 2018.