SH. SURINDER KUMAR BALI,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

The grievance of the assessee in this appeal relates to the addition of Rs.26,72,293/- confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) During the course of hearing nobody was present on behalf of the assessee neither any adjournment was sought. Therefore, the appeal is decided ex-parte after hearing the ld. DR on merit.

Facts of the case in brief are that the e-filed his return of income on 29.07.2011 declaring total income of Rs.6,76,741/-. Later on, the case was selected for scrutiny. The AO made the addition of Rs.25,82,000/- on account of cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. The said amount represented the various cash deposits on different dates. The AO also noticed that the assessee did 2 Surinder Kumar Bali not disclosed the interest amounting to Rs.90,293/- received from banks on saving bank account and FDRs. Accordingly, addition of Rs.26,72,293/- (Rs.25,82,000/- + Rs.90,293/-) was made. 4. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the ld. CIT(A) who decided the appeal of the assessee ex-parte by observing that on every date of hearing the assessee filed application for adjournment through Speed Post. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte by stating that the assessee was not serious about pursuing the said appeal and could not be allowed to force the appellate authority to wait indefinitely as the assessee’s wish before deciding the appeal. 5. Now the assessee is in appeal. The ld. DR supported the orders of the authorities below and further submitted that the ld. CIT(A) as well as the AO had given the opportunities to the assessee to explain his case but the assessee failed to do so. Therefore, the addition was rightly sustained by the ld. CIT(A). 6. I have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on the record. In the present case, it is noticed that the ld. CIT(A) himself admitted that the assessee sought adjournments whenever the 3 Surinder Kumar Bali case was fixed for hearing. However, he has not discussed as to whether the reasons given by the assessee for seeking the adjournments were valid reasons or not. He has also not stated in the impugned order that what were the reasons given by the assessee while seeking the adjournments. It is well settled that nobody should be condemned unheard as per the maxim “audi alteram partem”. In the instant case, the ld. CIT(A) had not given the due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. I, therefore, deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remand the case back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to be decided afresh in accordance with law after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed is allowed for statistical purposes. (Order Pronounced in the Court on 26/10/2016)