SH. RAJAN ADLAKHA,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, MEERUT

This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 15.03.2016 of ld. CIT(A)-IV, Kanpur.

The main grievance of the assessee in this appeal relates to the dismissal of the appeal by the ld. CIT(A) in limine without providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

Facts of the case in brief are that the AO imposed the penalty of Rs.1,05,00,000/- u/s 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in violation of Section 269SS of the Act by passing the penalty order dated Rajan Adlakha 24.09.2013. Against the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal in limine by observing in para 2 of the impugned order as under: “2. In this case, notices u/s 250 of the Act were issued as follows: S. no. Date of issue of notice Date of hearing 1 03.12.2015 24.12,2015 2 11.01.2016 11.02.2016 3 19.02.2016 04.03.2016 On, 04.03.2016 only an adjournment was sought for 14.03.2016. Again on the date fixed, none attended. It is clear from the above, that appellant is not interested in prosecuting the appeal, therefore, appeal of the appellant is decided keeping in view the various judicial pronouncements given by Hon'ble Courts/ITATs.”

Now the assessee is in appeal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee at the very outset sated that the ld. CIT(A) passed the impugned order ex-parte without providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and dismissed the appeal in limine without discussing the issues raised by the assessee on merit. It was contended that the assessee applied for an adjournment when the case was fixed for hearing on 04.03.2016 but the ld. CIT(A) without

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

We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. In the present case, it appears that the assessee applied for an adjournment on 04.03.2016 when the case was fixed for hearing. The ld. CIT(A) has not pointed out as to whether the application moved by the assessee was rejected or the case was adjourned for the date sought by the assessee or the case was fixed for another date. He simply stated that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal. In our opinion, the ld. CIT(A) ought to have decided the appeal on merit after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It is well settled that nobody should be condemned unheard as per the maxim “audi alteram partem”. We, therefore, by keeping in view the principles of natural justice, deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remand the issue 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.