Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “A” BENCH NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI O.P. KANT & SHRI AMIT SHUKLA
ORDER
PER AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against the impugned order dated 20.10.2014, passed by the Ld. CIT (Appeals)-II, New Delhi for the quantum of assessment passed u/s 143(3) for the A.Y. 2012-13. In the grounds of appeal
assessee has raised following grounds:- “1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A) is arbitrary, against law and facts on record.
2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A) before passing the order has not given a j reasonable opportunity of being heard which is against the principle of natural justice and is J bad in law and hence liable to be quashed.
3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of the learned Assessing officer in making addition of Rs 39, 54,118/-.
The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has failed to appreciate the fact that the addition made by the Assessing officer has been made simply on the basis of suspicion, assumption, surmises, & conjectures and without bringing any cogent material on record.
5. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A) while passing the order has erred in confirming the addition of Rs 39, 54,118/-( made by the Assessing officer u/s 69C on account of unexplained expenditure) as unexplained money u/s 69 A of the Income Tax Act.
That the appellant craves leave to add, modify, amend and delete any of these grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.”
In the first ground of appeal, the assessee’s main objection which has been raised by the Ld. Counsel also before us is that, the Ld. CIT (Appeal) has passed ex-parte order without providing any reasonable opportunity of being heard. Therefore, he submitted that the matter should be restored back to the file of the Learned CIT (Appeals) for fresh adjudication as the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has not properly considered the explanation and submission of the assessee with regard to the additions made by the Assessing Officer.
On the other hand the ld. DR submitted that already opportunities were given to the assessee by the Ld. CIT (A), who did not turn up on the date fixed for hearing, therefore, Ld. CIT (Appeals) has rightly decided the appeal on merits and he objected to for setting aside the matter to the file of the Learned CIT (Appeals).
4. After considering the rival submission and on perusal of the relevant materials placed on record, we find that a notice for hearing on 17.9.2014 was sent from the office of CIT(Appeals), which was duly responded by the assessee by filing a letter in Dak on 16.9.2014 stating that the written submission was under preparation. The case was adjourned to 17.10.2014, on which date no request or letter of adjournment was given by the assessee. However, it is not borne out from the order of the Ld. CIT (Appeals) as to whether any intimation for fixing the date on 14.10.2014 has been sent through registered post or not and whether any authorized representatives of the assessee has noted that date. In any case in the interest of substantial justice, it would appropriate that the matter should be restored back to the file of the Learned CIT (Appeals) to deal and consider the material facts on record as well as to give reasonable and proper opportunity to the assessee to file the explanations/written submissions or any other evidence or material to substantiate its case. The Learned CIT (Appeals) shall decide the issue in accordance with the law. We order accordingly.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 03.10.2017.