Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH (SMC-II
Before: SHRI N.K. SAINI
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH (SMC-II), NEW DELHI BEFORE : SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 6193/Del./2014 Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Yogendra Kumar Gaur, vs. Income-tax Officer, A-227, Ground Floor, Ward 36(3), New Delhi Bunkar Colony, Ashok Vihar Phase – IV, Delhi. (PAN: AGSPG 2799Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. V. Raja Kumar, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Amrit Lal, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 23.08.2016 Date of pronouncement : 30.08.2016 ORDER
This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 28.08.2014 of CIT(A)-XXVII, New Delhi. Following grounds have been raised in this appeal : “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the following actions of the Assessing Officer : 1. passing order u/s. 144 of the Act without serving the statutory notices and also without providing due, adequate and proper opportunity of hearing. 2. making addition u/s. 69C of the Act in a sum of Rs.30,89,470/- on account of alleged unexplained credit card expenses. Both the actions being arbitrary, erroneous, untenable and unlawful must be quashed with directions for appropriate relief.”
The main grievance of the assessee in this appeal relates to exparte order passed by the ld. CIT(A), who confirmed the order of the AO passed u/s. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee filed the return of income on 20.07.2009 declaring an income of Rs.1,34,320/-. The AO framed the assessment exparte u/s. 144 of the Act by making addition of Rs.30,89,470/- u/s. 69C of the Act. The AO disallowed the expenditure of the aforesaid amount claimed by the assessee towards credit cards. Being aggrieve, the assessee carried the matter to the ld. CIT(A), who also passed the impugned order exparte and sustained the addition.
I have considered the submissions of both the parties and the material available on the record. On perusal of the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A), I find that the ld. CIT(A) mentioned that notice for hearing was issued to the assessee on 12.08.2014 posting the case for final hearing on 27.08.2014. However, he did not mention as to whether said notice was served upon the assessee or not. It is well settled that nobody should be condemned un-heard as per the maxim, “Audi Alteram Partem”. In the present case, the AO as well as the ld. CIT(A) passed their respective orders ex parte. I, therefore, think it appropriate to set aside this issue back to the file of the AO to be decided afresh in accordance with law after providing due and proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to cooperate and not to seek unwarranted or unauthorized adjournments.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 30.08.2016