HARSH KUMAR SINGH BHADORIYA,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO WARD-1(3), GHAZIABAD

Although a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee, these all relate to the ex parte order of the CIT(A) in confirming the various additions made by the AO.

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual. On the basis of AIR information received that the assessee, during the impugned assessment year, has deposited cash amounting to Rs.16,39,500/- in his SB account maintained with the Royal Bank of Scotland, a query letter was issued to the assessee on 9th February, 2018. However, the assessee did not comply with the said letter. Accordingly, proceedings u/s 147 of the IT Act were initiated with the approval of the PCIT, Ghaziabad and notice u/s 148 was issued to the assessee on 26th March, 2018. Subsequently, notices u/s 142(1)/144 with detailed questionnaire were also issued to the assessee from time to time. Since there was no proper compliance from the siade of the assessee to explain the huge cash deposit made in the bank account, the AO, after considering the salary as per the bank statement and interest income, made addition of Rs.10,86,300/- to the total income of the assessee and determined the income of the assessee at Rs.13,01,200/-.

Since the assessee did not appear before the CIT(A) despite number of opportunities granted, the ld.CIT(A), following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B.N. B.N. Bhattacharjee & Anr., 118 ITR 461 (SC); the decision of the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case Estate of late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT, 223 ITR 480 (M.P.); and the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Multiplan India (P.) Ltd, 38 ITD 320 (Del.), dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee for non-prosecution.

Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that in the interest of justice the assessee should be given an opportunity to substantiate his case. The ld. DR, on the other hand, heavily opposed the request of the ld. Counsel for the assessee and stated that the assessee has scant regard for the tax proceedings. Due to his non-appearance before the AO as well as CIT(A), ex parte orders have been passed. He accordingly submitted that the order of the CIT(A) be upheld.

I have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused record. It is an admitted fact that due to persistent non-compliance of the assessee before the AO and due to non-filing of the requisite details, the AO determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.13,01,200/-. Since the assessee did not appear before the CIT(A), the ld.CIT(A) in the ex parte order passed by him, sustained the various additions made by the AO. It is the submission of the ld. Counsel for the assessee that given an opportunity, the assessee is in a position to substantiate his case. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, I deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate his case and decide the issue as per fact and law. The assessee is also hereby directed to appear before the CIT(A) and substantiate his case without seeking any adjournment under any pretext, failing which the ld.CIT(A) is at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. I hold and direct 3 accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.