SWAPNIL ANIL AHIRKAR ,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -4(1), NAGPUR

The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the impugned order dated 22/08/2019, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–1, Nagpur, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2010–11.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) erred in not considering the adjournment filed by the assessee on 30/05/2019 and dismissed appeal without any basis, therefore order passed is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive.

3. On the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 21,35,178/ though the issue is squarely covered by the order of Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur

2 Swapnil Anil Ahirkar ITA no.302/Nag./2019 as well as order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I dated 28/10/2014 vide No. CIT(A)-1/687/2011-12 in assessee's own case. Therefore, additions confirmed are unjustified, unwarranted and excessive.

6. On the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) erred in not confirming addition of Rs.7,00,000/- as out of rent expenses, therefore the addition confirmed by the CIT(A) are illegal, invalid and bad in law.

3. When this appeal is taken up for hearing, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the learned CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order by not providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The learned CIT(A) has even not considered the adjournment application filed on 30/05/2019, and dismissed the appeal of the assessee without issuing a speaking order. The learned Counsel thus prayed that one more opportunity may be given to the assessee to substantiate its case before the learned CIT(A).

4. On the other hand, the learned D.R. submitted that the learned CIT(A) has given sufficient opportunities inspite of that the assesse has not appeared before the learned CIT(A) and not filed relevant details. He strongly supported the orders passed by the learned CIT(A).

3 Swapnil Anil Ahirkar ITA no.302/Nag./2019

5. We have heard both the parties, perused the materials available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. We find that though the learned CIT(A) gave opportunities to the assessee, ultimately, the order passed by him is an ex-parte order. The learned CIT(A) has not considered the adjournment application filed by the assessee. While going through the impugned order, we find that the order passed by the learned CIT(A) is not a speaking order or on merit even. Therefore, we are of the opinion that by following the principles of natural justice, one more opportunity should be given to the assesse to substantiate his case before the learned CIT(A). In view of the above, the order passed by the learned CIT(A) is set aside and remit the matter to the file of the learned CIT(A) and direct him to adjudicate the matter afresh and pass a speaking order. Needless to say, the learned CIT(A) is directed to provide reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It is also directed that the assessee should not seek adjournment without there being a justified reason and comply the notices by the learned CIT(A) promptly. Accordingly, all the grounds raised by the assessee in this appeal are allowed for statistical purposes.