Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC-3’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. N. K. Saini
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC-3’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, Accountant Member & 3199/Del/2016 : Asstt. Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 Ashok Kumar, Vs Income Tax Officer, S/o-Sh. Krishan Kumar, Ward-1, H.No.-1300, Sector-12, Sonepat, Haryana Sonepat, Haryana (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. ARAPK9383K Assessee by : Sh. N. S. Bhatnagar, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. F. R. Meena, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 04.10.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 07.10.2016 ORDER
These two appeals by the assessee against the separate orders dated 18.02.2016 and 23.02.2016 of ld. CIT(A), Faridabad for the assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12 were heard together, so these are being disposed off by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.
The main grievance of the assessee in these two appeals vide Ground Nos. 3 & 4 relates to the opportunity not being provided by the AO and the ld. CIT(A).
Facts of the case in brief are that the AO initiated the proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 & 3199/Del/2016 2 Ashok Kumar (hereinafter referred to as the Act) after noticing that there was mismatch in the receipts shown by the assessee and as mentioned in Form No. 26AS. The AO made the addition of the difference in those figures by passing the ex-parte order u/s 144 of the Act. Accordingly, additions of Rs.10,72,000/- and Rs.13,63,762/- were made for the assessment years 2010- 11 and 2011-12 respectively in the returned income.
Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the ld. CIT(A) who passed the ex-parte order in limine by mentioning that the notices of hearing were issued on 08.02.2016 for hearing on 16.02.2016 and on that date none attended nor any written submissions were filed.
Now the assessee is in appeal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that neither the AO nor the ld. CIT(A) had given proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee and passed the ex-parte order. It was further submitted that the assessee did not appear before the ld. CIT(A) due to the agitation by the JAT in various parts of Haryana. He also furnished the copies of the cuttings of various newspapers from 14.02.2016 to 17.02.2016, in support of his above submissions. It was also submitted that the AO had not appreciated the facts in right perspective before passing the ex- & 3199/Del/2016 3 Ashok Kumar parte order and making the addition. It was stated that Form No. 26AS relied upon by the AO was not related to the assessee because the same pertained to M/s Shivam Co- operative L/C whose PAN number was different from that of the assessee. He requested to remand the cases back to the file of the AO.
In his rival submissions the ld. DR although supported the orders of the authorities below but could not controvert the aforesaid contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee.
I have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. In the present case, it seems that the assessee could not appear before the ld. CIT(A) due to JAT agitation for reservation in Haryana, which fact is evident from the cuttings of the various newspapers furnished by the assessee. It also appears that the AO considered the wrong 26AS Form which did not pertained to the assessee. I, therefore, considering the totality of the facts deem it appropriate to remand these cases back to the file of the AO to be adjudicated afresh in accordance with law after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. & 3199/Del/2016 4 Ashok Kumar 8. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. (Order Pronounced in the Court on 07/10/2016)