Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU
Date of Hearing : 02-11-2015 Date of Order : 02-11-2015
O R D E R These appeals by the Assessee are directed against the respective Orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XI, New Delhi both dated 28.2.2014 pertaining to assessment years 2005-06 & 2007-08. Since the issues involved in these appeals are common and identical, hence, I am disposing the appeals by passing this common order for the sake of convenience, by dealing the (AY 2005-06).
2. The grounds of appeal read as under:-
The order of the Learned Dy. Director of Income Tax is bad in law and on the facts of the case. The proceeding u/s 143(3)/153C/153A were illegal and not according to Act.
That the learned Assessing Officer has wrongly treated bank pass book as assessee's books of account. It is a copy of the ledger account of the bank. The application of section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is unjust and arbitrary.
3. That no reasonable opportunity was given to the assessee to represent his case for making submission or filing evidence or additional evidence. This was against the natural law of justice. Further no detailed or speaking order was passed by the learned CIT (Appeal).
The addition of Rs. 66,780/- for the alleged bank deposit were" unjust and uncalled for. The addition was made on a assumption basis without confronting the material used against assessee.
The Learned Assessing Officer erred in charging interest uls 234A, 234B or 234D of the Income Tax Act-1961.
6. The Assessee craves leave to add, amend or withdraw any grounds of appeal at the time or before the hearing of appeal.
The facts narrated by the revenue authorities are not disputed by both the parties, therefore, the same are not repeated here for the sake of convenience.
4. I have heard both the parties and perused the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities alongwith relevant records available with the Appeal field. I am of the view that the Ld. CIT(A) has not given sufficient opportunity to the assessee for substantiating its claim before him. For the sake of convenience the relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under:-
“1.1 I have considered the grounds raised in appeal and the facts of the case. During the appellate proceedings, following notices were issued vide Speed Post on the address (Jagtar Singh, WZ-221/255, Block-S, 7, Vishnu Garden, New Delhi – 110018 stated in From No. 35:-
Date of issue of notice Fixed for Remarks / speed post 24.9.13 17.10.13 Notice was sent by Speed Post on 24.9.2013 fixing the case ED27220648-61N 17.10.13. None attended nor filed any adjournment. 19.2.14 27.02.14 Notice was sent by Speed Post on 19.2.14 fixing the case ED10352377-21N 27.2.14. None attended nor filed any adjournment.
1.2 In view of the facts stated above, it is observed that the assesee was given two opportunities (listed above) to represent his case before the appellate authority but nobody attended the proceedings nor filed adjournment application. The notices were sent by Speed Post for which it is presumed that assesser must have received them within 3 days. But he never filed any written submission nor application for adjournment. In view of the indifferent approach, I find that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the appeal proceedings pending indefinitely. Therefore, it is presumed that the assessee has nothing to appeal against the additions made by the AO.
1.3 Further, in view of the provisions of section 251(1)(c), the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals has the power to dispose of an appeal “in any other case, he may pass such orders in the appeal as he things fit”. In the instant case there is enough ground of non-appearance of the appellant to decide the matter ex-parte, the appeal is decided on the basis of material available on record. Hence, the action of the AO is upheld and the appeal is dismissed.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed being unrepresented as indicated above.“
5. After perusing the aforesaid impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A), I find that Ld. CIT(A) has not passed a speaking order. He summarily dismissed the appeal by holding that assessee being unrepresented. In my considered opinion, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in this regard. Ld. CIT(A) should have adjudicated the issue on merits. It is a settled law that even the administrative orders have to be consistent with the rules of natural justice. Hence, I am of the view that in this case the issues in dispute needs to be remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the same afresh, as per law. Accordingly, Ld. CIT(A) is directed to consider the issues in dispute afresh and pass a proper and speaking order considering the merits of the case. Needless to add that the assessee should be given adequate opportunity of being heard. For the speedy disposal of the matter, the Assessee is directed through his Authorised Representative Shri Sanjeev Kapoor, to be present before the Ld. CIT(A) on 08.12.2015 at 10.00 am and file the relevant documents, if any, before him to substantiate his claim.
In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 02/11/2015.