SANJAY GULATI,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 2(1)(4), AGRA

This appeal has been preferred by assessee against the impugned order dated 23.08.2023 passed in Appeal No.CIT(A)-2, Agra/10136/2019- 20 by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi u/s. 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) wherein the ld. CIT(Appeals), dismissed assessee’s first appeal.

At the very outset, ld. Representative for assessee has requested to condone the delay of about 452 days (469 days according to assessee), referring assessee’s application for condonation of delay., wherein, it has been stated that the assessee did not receive any notice in respect of the impugned order at his known residential place, further submitting that he was seriously engaged in treating himself and his sister. The application is supported with assessee’s affidavit, which remains un-controverted.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income on 29.09.2011 declaring total income at Rs.2,70,137/-. Based on information in possession of Assessing Officer that the assessee had deposited cash of Rs.10,30,000/- in his bank account with Yes Bank, Sanjay Place, Agra, the Assessing Officer initiated proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act. Since there was neither any compliance on behalf of the assessee to the notice u/s. 148 nor did he file any explanation to explain the source of cash deposit, the Assessing Officer completed assessment vide order dated 14.12.2018 passed u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act by making addition of Rs.10,30,000/- as unexplained income, which stood confirmed by ld. CIT(Appeals) vide impugned order passed ex parte.

This appeal has been filed on the ground that Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition made ex parte without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to assessee.

We have perused the records and heard the ld. Representative for the assessee and the ld. Departmental representative for the Revenue.

Learned representative for the assessee has submitted that the impugned order has been passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals), ex parte in violation of principles of natural justice. Prayed to set aside the impugned order.

Learned DR has submitted that the assessee was provided sufficient opportunity of hearing by learned CIT(Appeals) on various occasions, but for no avail. Learned DR has supported the impugned order.

It transpires from the perusal of records that the assessee did not respond to the notices issued by Assessing Officer in the assessment proceedings, which led the Assessing Officer to complete the assessment u/s. 144 of the Act. We further notice that the assessee also failed to respond to the notices issued by the first appellate authority on 29.12.2020, 17.09.2021, 29.11.2021, 21.09.2022 and 04.07.2023. Such an irresponsive conduct of the assessee cannot be appreciated. It is however noticed that the ex-parte impugned order has not been passed in the spirit of section 250(6) of the Act. In the circumstances and in the interest of justice and fair play, we deem it just and appropriate to afford last opportunity to the assessee and remit the matter back to the file of learned CIT(Appeals) for adjudication on merits. We order accordingly. We further direct the 3 | P a g e assessee to be diligent and cooperative in attending the hearings and making submissions before the learned CIT(Appeals) for the expeditious and effective disposal. Assessee shall refrain from seeking any adjournment but for compelling and unavoidable reasons. Needless to say that learned CIT(Appeals) shall ensure the observance of the principles of natural justice. The appeal is liable to be allowed accordingly.

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. The impugned order dt. 23.08.2023 is set aside.