RAM SINGH THROUGH LEGAL HEIR AJAY SINGH CHAUHAN,ALWAR vs. ITO WD1(1), ALWAR, ALWAR

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Id. CIT(A) erred in adjudicating the appeal, without providing adequate opportunity of being heard. It is therefore prayed that order passed by Id. CIT(A) is against the principles of natural justice and deserves to be held bad in law.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in not condoning the delay without appreciating the fact that the assessment order and demand notice was received by someone else and not by assessee. However, after receiving the demand notice and assessment order assessee immediately filed the appeal before CIT(A), thus assessee should not suffer on account of the default of some other person.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in not condoning the delay without appreciating the fact that the assessee was a senior citizen aged about 77 years old at the time of passing of assessment order. Further the assessee was also suffering from health ailments during the passing of assessment order which is evident from the medical record which will be supplied during the filing of paper book.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in not condoning the delay and deciding the appeal of the assessee by dismissing it on the ground of delay by ignoring the fact that the 30 days are counted from the date of service of order and not from the date of the order and further the Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order has concealed the fact of delivery of assessment order to assessee.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Ld. AO of passing the erroneous impugned order u/s 147.r.w.s. 144 of the Act without considering the fact that the same was passed without giving the proper opportunity to the assessee and on wrong allegations.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Ld. AO of passing the erroneous impugned order u/s 147.r.w.s. 144 of the Act by ignoring the fact the reasons to believe were not provided to the assessee that on what basis such impugned reopening was done.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in upholding the assessment order vide which the Assessing Officer has treated the entire sum of 65,27,171/- as income from undisclosed sources for the Assessment Year 2013-14 while completely ignoring the fact that for the relevant A.Y. there is no cash deposit such amount in the Punjab National Bank A/c maintained by the Assessee. The ld. CIT(A) has without giving any consideration to the merits of the case, dismissed the appeal of the assessee on ground of delay.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in upholding the assessment order vide which the Assessing Officer has treated the entire sum of 65,27,171/- as income from undisclosed sources for the Assessment Year 2013-14 while completely ignoring the fact that the Assessee had purchased an immovable property in the financial year 2011-12 relevant to A.Y. 2012-13 and does not pertain to the present proceedings as the same are relevant to A.Y. 2013-14. Therefore, the said addition made on the fact of alleged immovable property transaction by the assessee is wholly misplaced and incorrect. The Id. CIT(A) has without giving any consideration to the merits of the case, upheld the erroneous addition made by the Assessing Officer.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in upholding the assessment order vide which the Assessing Officer has treated the entire sum of 65,27,171/- as income from undisclosed sources for the Assessment Year 2013-14 while completely ignoring the fact that the proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer are not maintainable qua the A.Y. 2013-14 since the immovable property transaction was made by the assessee in the Financial Year 2011-12 relevant to A.Y. 2012-13. The Id. CIT(A) has without giving any consideration to the merits of the case, upheld the erroneous addition made by the Assessing Officer.

The appellant craves the right to add, delete or amend any of the grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of appeal." Submission of ld.Authorised Representative(ld.AR) :

The ld.Authorised Representative(ld.AR) for the Assessee submitted that assessee was a senior citized 75 years old and he was suffering from chronic illness of liver and kidney for a very long time. Eventually, due to chronic illness, passed away on 13.05.2023. After the assessee's death, the appeal was dismissed by the ld.CIT(A) vide order dated 09.02.2024.

1 And also, assessee's appeal was dismissed by the ld.CIT(A) without discussing each and every ground and merits of the case and merely dismissed for Delay of 69 days only. Hence, ld.AR requested for one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

2 The ld.AR submitted that ld.CIT(A) has passed the order in the name of assessee Mr.Ram Singh on 09.02.2024, whereas assessee passed away on 13.05.2023. Therefore, the order is bad in law. Submission of ld.Departmental Representative(ld.DR) :

The ld.DR for the Revenue relied on the order of Assessing Officer(AO) and ld.CIT(A)[NFAC]. Findings & Analysis :

We have heard both the parties and perused the records.

1 The ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on the ground of Delay as Assessee has failed to give any reason for Delay. We have gone through the Assessee's Death Certificate issued by the