Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC-2’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. N. K. Saini
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC-2’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, Accountant Member Asstt. Year : 2005-06 M/s Balwan Singh Ramawat, Vs Income Tax Officer, R/o- WZ-462, Palam Village, Ward-25(4), New Delhi-110045 New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. ADLPR3054P Assessee by : None Revenue by : Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 23.08.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 31.08.2016 ORDER
This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 29.02.2012 of ld. CIT(A)-XVI, New Delhi.
The main grievance of the assessee in this appeal relates to the ex-parte order passed by the ld. CIT(A) and in rejecting the application filed under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.
Facts of the case in brief are that the AO issued a notice u/s 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by Speed Post to the assessee and on scheduled date nobody was present, the AO passed the assessment order u/s 144 of the Act by making an 2 Balwan Singh Ramawat addition of Rs.11,38,000/-. Against the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal to the ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the addition by passing the ex-parte order and observing that there was no compliance to the numerous notices sent to the assessee except for the filing of an application and Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 on 17.06.2011.
Nobody was present on behalf of the assessee neither any adjournment was sought. The appeal is decided ex-parte on merit after hearing the ld. DR.
The ld. DR strongly supported the impugned order and submitted that the assessee did not come forward to explain the transaction of Rs.11,38,000/-, therefore, the AO has rightly treated the same as undisclosed income of the assessee and the ld. CIT(A) was fully justified in confirming the same.
I have considered the submissions of ld. DR and material on record. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the AO as well as the ld. CIT(A) passed their respective orders ex-parte. However, it is not brought on record that the notices of hearing were served upon the assessee. The AO assumed that the notice might have served upon the assessee. It is well settled that nobody should be condemned unheard as per maxim “audi alteram partem”. I, therefore, deem it appropriate to remand this case back to the file of the AO to be adjudicated afresh in 3 Balwan Singh Ramawat accordance with law after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. (Order Pronounced in the Court on 31/08/2016)