JAI PRAKASH,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD 2(2), GURGAON

We have heard the parties and perused materials on record. The basic grievance of the assessee is against dismissal of his appeal without providing reasonable opportunity of hearing.

As could be seen from the facts on record, the assessee is a resident individual. Based on certain information available in the system of the Department, it was found that in the financial year relevant to the assessment year under dispute, the assessee had deposited cash in his bank account. Since the assessee had not filed any return of income, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment u/s 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. As alleged by the Assessing Officer, the assessee did not respond to the notices issued u/s 148 and 142(1) of the Act.

Having considered rival submissions, we find, the assessee, for whatever may be the reason, was not properly represented either before the Assessing Officer or before the First Appellate Authority. Before us, it has been submitted by the assessee that counsel, who was entrusted the case to appear before the Departmental authorities, did not make proper representation. Be that as it may, fact remains that assessee did not get proper opportunity to represent his case regarding the deposits appearing in the bank accounts. Therefore, in fitness of things, we are inclined to restore the issue arising in the appeal, to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication to enable the assessee to explain the source of credit entries appearing in the bank account through supporting evidences. Grounds are allowed for statistical purpose.

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.