Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. N. K. Saini
ORDER This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 24.08.2016 of ld. CIT(A), Muzaffarnagar.
Following grounds have been raised in this appeal: “1.1 That the Ld. AO has erred in law and on facts in making assessment u/s 144 /148, without effecting proper service of notice u/s 148 or 142 (1) as stated in ex-parte order passed by the A.O. 1.2 That the Ld. CIT (Appeal) has erred in confirming AO's order u/s 144/148 of the Act. 2.1 That the AO has erred in making an addition of Rs.847165/- on account of unexplained deposits in the Bank account u/s 69A of the Act. 2.2 That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 847165/-made by the A.O.
2 Kavita ignoring the agrl. Background of the appellant and family members earning agriculture income and enjoying sale proceeds of popular trees grown over the lands.
THAT the Ld. CIT(A) was wrongly influenced of the adverse observations contained in AO's ex-parte order passed without effecting proper services of the various notices issues and not properly served upon the appellant, resulting in addition of Rs.847165/- towards appellant's income which is a great hit, unjust and deserve to be knocked out.
THAT the appellant reserves its rights to add, amend or modify any ground of appeal
before final adjudication.”
3. Vide Ground No. 3, the assessee is aggrieved against the action of the AO in passing the assessment order ex-parte and vide Ground No. 1.2, the assessee is aggrieved against the action of the ld. CIT(A) in confirming the order passed by the AO ex-parte.
4. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the ld. CIT(A) passed the impugned order ex-parte without affording a due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and the AO also did not afford proper opportunity of being heard while framing the assessment ex-parte. He requested that the matter may be sent back to the AO for adjudication after providing a due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In his rival submissions the ld. DR submitted that the assessee did not cooperate and never appeared either before the AO or the ld. 3 Kavita CIT(A). Therefore, there was no option except to pass the assessment or the impugned order ex-parte.
I have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the AO passed the assessment order ex-parte u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the ld. CIT(A) also passed the impugned order ex-parte. He simply stated that the notices of hearing were issued on 15.06.2016 and 12.08.2016 and there was no compliance, however, he nowhere stated that the notices of hearing were served upon the assessee. I, therefore, keeping in view the principles of natural justice, deem it appropriate to set aside this issue back to the file of the AO to be adjudicated afresh in accordance with law after providing a due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. (Order Pronounced in the Court on 17/05/2017)