MR. SANJAY TYAGI,UTTAR PRADESH vs. ITO, GHAZIABAD

The main grievance of the assessee in this appeal relates to the ex-parte order passed by the ld. CIT(A) without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

Facts of the case in brief are that the AO received AIR information that the assessee had made cash deposits of Rs.12,00,000/- in saving bank account. In response to the query of the AO, the assessee filed copy of Income Tax Return showing income of Rs.1,58,115/-. The AO however framed the assessment ex-parte by making and addition of Rs.12,00,000/-.

2 Sanjay Tyagi 4. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the ld. CIT(A) who also passed the ex-parte order by observing that the assessee had sought adjournments whenever the case was fixed for hearing. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine for non-prosecution and sustained the addition made by the AO.

Now the assessee is in appeal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee at the very outset stated that no notice of hearing was served upon the assessee when the adjournment was sought and even it was not intimated as to whether the application dated 12.01.2016 was rejected. He therefore requested to restore the issue back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to be decided after providing an opportunity of being heard.

In his rival submissions the ld. DR supported the order of the AO and further submitted that by considering the non- cooperative attitude of the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) as well as the AO passed their respective ex-parte orders. 7. I have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. In the present case, it is noticed that the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte for non-prosecution. He had not discussed the issue raised by the assessee on merit. It is also 3 Sanjay Tyagi noticed that the ld. CIT(A) simply stated that the case was fixed for hearing on 12.01.2016 and on the said date the assessee filed adjournment application by stating that necessary documents were under preparation. The said application was rejected by the ld. CIT(A) without giving any cogent reason and the appeal was dismissed for non- prosecution. It is well settled that nobody should be condemned unheard as per maxim “audi alteram partem”. In the present case, the ld. CIT(A) did not discuss the issues raised by the assessee on merit. I, therefore, deem it appropriate to set aside this case back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to be adjudicated afresh in accordance with law after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. (Order Pronounced in the Court on 07/10/2016)