SHRI LILADHAR NANJIBHAI HINGRAJYA,TAPI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2, BARDOLI

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has not offered adequate opportunities to here the case and passed ex-parte order and hence the case may please be set aside and restored back to the CIT(A) or AO.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Office initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4.It is therefore prayed that the above addition may please be deleted as learned members of the Tribunal may deem it proper. 5. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of the hearing of the appeal.” 2. Rival submission of Ld. Authorized Representative (Ld.AR) for the assessee and Ld. Senior Departmental Representative (Ld. Sr-DR) for the Revenue heard and record perused. The Ld.AR of the assessee submits that Assessing Officer as well as NFAC/Ld.CIT(A) made the addition for the want of proper reply and explanation and passed ex- party order. The Assessing Officer made addition on account of unexplained investment in property. The NFAC/Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the action of Assessing Officer in ex parte order. The Ld.AR of the assessee submits that NFAC/Ld.CIT(A) sent the notice on the different e-mail, though assessee has given e-mail to his counsel for the purpose of service of notice of appeal. Since no such notice was served on the e-mail provided in Form-35 (appeal form), therefore, no proper compliance could be made. The Ld. AR of the assessee submits that assessee has good case on merit and is likely to succeeds if one more opportunity is granted to explain source of (A.Y 15-16) Liladhar N. Hingrajya