PAWAN KUMAR SINGHAL,GHAZIABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 2, GHAZIABAD

O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, J. M. 1. The aforesaid appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the impugned order dated 25.07.2018, passed by the ld CIT(A), Ghaziabad for the quantum of assessment u/s 143(3) for the Assessment Year 2014- 15. In the grounds of appeal the assessee has mainly challenged the addition of Rs. 16892160/- made u/s 68 after disallowing claim made u/s 10(38) of the Act.

2. At the outset, the ld counsel for the assessee submitted that the ld CIT(A) has passed an ex parte order without giving any opportunity of having to the assessee. He also pointed out that this is the second round of proceedings and in the first round, the ld CIT(A) had decided the appeal ex parte vide order 13.11.2017, which was much before the date of hearing fixed by the office of the ld CIT(A) i.e. on 23.11.2017. Aggrieved by the said order the assessee had preferred appeal before this Tribunal wherein, the Tribunal vide order dated 28.02.2018 in had remanded the matter back to the ld CIT(A) after noting the fact the appeal of the assessee has been decided ex parte without giving proper opportunity to the assessee. Now in the second Page | 1 Pawan Kumar Singhal Vs. ACIT (Assessment Year: 2014-15) round of appeal the ld CIT(A) also, ld counsel pointed out that the assessee on the last date of hearing fixed on i.e. 19.07.2018, the assessee had filed written submission along with paper book and impression was given that further date would be given for the final hearing and on the same date adjournment application was filed by the assessee that counsel was not well. Such an application was also entertained by the first appellate authority. Thereafter. impugned ex parte order was received. Hence, the assessee is highly aggrieved by such an order, firstly, for the reason that no proper opportunity was given to substantiate the case; and secondly all the materials facts and documents which were filed during the course of the first round of proceedings as well as during the course of assessment proceedings have been held to be in the nature of additional evidence by the ld CIT(A). Without even confronting to this fact, she has held that the additional evidences cannot be admitted. Accordingly, the order of the ld CIT(A) is without appreciation of various evidences which was there on the record. Accordingly, he prayed in the interest of justice, matter may be restored back to the file of the ld CIT(A) with a direction to give proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

3. The ld DR on the other hand, pointed out that the assessee had sought several adjournments and on the last date only, the assessee had filed written submission and paper book which has been duly considered by the ld CIT(A) and therefore, it cannot be the case where proper opportunity has not been given. In any case, the matter can be remanded back to the file of the ld CIT(A) with a direction to the assessee that assessee should properly comply with the notices of hearing.

4. After considering the aforesaid submissions and on perusal of the relevant observations made in the impugned order, we find that the ld CIT(A) in the order running into 62 pages has mainly incorporated all the earlier orders passed by the ld AO; CIT(A) and by the tribunal and has also noted the various dates on which the assessee had filed adjournment Pawan Kumar Singhal Vs. ACIT (Assessment Year: 2014-15) application including the last date fixed i.e. 19.07.2018. It is seen that on 19.07.2008 the assessee had filed an adjournment application which reads as under:-

Dtd 19/07/2018 PAN -ADNPK 1527 C To, The CIT (A) CGO Complex-1, Hapur Chungi, Ghaziabad Uttar Pradesh IN RE; PAWAN KUMAR SINGHAL 157, CHANDERPURI, GHAZIABAD, UTTAR PRADESH A.Y.2014 -2015 U/s.l43(3) APPEAL NO. 597295741200117 Sub:- Request For Adjournment Madam, Our counsel CA Raj Kumar has not been well. In his absence the needful cannot be done. However, the writ ten submissions and the paper book as prepared by the counsel are available and can be filed right now on directions from you. However the case can be argued only by CA Raj Kumar. It is therefore requested to kindly adjourn the matter in the 1st week of August 2018 and oblige. Thanking you, Yours faithfully (Pawan Kumar Singhal)” 4.1 On the same date, the assessee had filed the written submission as well as paper book also in the DAK counter as instructed by the office of the ld CIT(A). Thereafter, the ld CIT(A) without giving further opportunity of personal hearing, has simply passed the order rejecting all the contention vide order dated 25.07.2018. The documents and evidences submitted in the paper book has been treated to be in nature of additional evidences without even considering the fact that neither the assessee had filed any application for admission of additional evidence nor anything has been brought on record that these evidences were not available on record or Page | 3