Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee appealed against an ex-parte order from the CIT(A) for AY 2011-12, which dismissed the assessee's appeal due to non-furnishing of submissions. The assessee contended that notices under section 250 were not received, and the source of the cash deposit in question was from the sale of land.
Held
The Tribunal, considering the interest of justice and the agreement of both parties, remitted the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to consider the issue afresh, providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without providing sufficient opportunity of being heard and failed to adjudicate the claimed source of cash deposit from land sale.
Sections Cited
Section 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’ : NEW DELHI
(Assessment Year: 2011-12) Vijender Sharma, vs. ITO, Ward 2 (5), Sadatt Nagar, Village Ikla, Dasna, Ghaziabad. Ghaziabad – 201 001 (Uttar Pradesh). (PAN : AXEPS3950L) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Nitin Kumar Sharma, CA REVENUE BY : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 01.04.2024 Date of Order : 03.04.2024
ORDER This appeal by the assessee is directed against the orders of the ld. CIT (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) dated 31.07.2023 for the assessment year 2011-12.
Grounds of appeal
taken by the assessee read as under :- “1. Learned CIT (A) has erred both on facts and in law by not affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee as the notices u/s 250 of the Act were not received by the assessee, hence not served on the assessee.
2. Learned CIT (A) has erred both on facts and in law in not adjudicate the matter on the basis of ground raised by assessee, as the source of cash deposit was sale of land.”
3. Consequent upon ex-parte order by the AO, ld. CIT (A) also dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that assessee has not furnished necessary submissions.
Against his order, assessee is in appeal before the ITAT. I have heard both the parties and perused the records.
I find that interest of justice would be served if the issue is remitted back to the file of AO as prayed by the ld. Counsel for the assessee. Ld. DR for the Revenue did not have any objection to this proposition. Hence, the issue is remitted to the file of AO to consider afresh after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on this 3rd day of April, 2024.