PARSOTTAM LAL SHARMA,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

As all the issues arising in their appeals are common for the sake of convenience they are heard together and disposed of by way of this common order.

Facts of the case are brought out at para 2 at the CIT(A) order, which is extracted for the re-difference -: “The Original return in this case was filed on 24.11.2003 with Ward- 25(1), New Delhi, declaring a total income of Rs. 69,139/-. In the return filed on 24.11.2003, the assessee had not shown any income under the head “Income from Other Source”. Whereas in the return filed u/s 153A on 20.09.2010, the assessee has declared an income of Rs. 3,969/- from bank interest and dividend income. Thus, the assessee had furnished in accurate particulars of his income in the returned dated 24.11.2003. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are separately initiated.”

Aggrieved the assessee carried the matter of appeal. As the assessee did not respond to the various notice issued by the Ld. CIT(A), the appeal was decided ex-parte. The first appellate authority dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal.

We have heard Shri Ashish Goel, the ld. Counsel for the assessee and Shri Raman Kant Garg the ld. Sr. DR on behalf of the Revenue.

After hearing rival contentions, I am of the considered opinion that the Principles of Natural Justice have been violated in this case. The assessee has demonstrated that he was prevented by sufficient couse from appearing before the Ld. CIT(A) on the date of hearing. I also find that the CIT(A) has not passed speaking order in this case. Under this circumstances, I deem it fit and proper, to set aside the matter to the file of the first appellate authority, with the direction -94/Del/2015 3 Parsottam Lal Sharma to give adequate opportunity to the assessee and to pass speaking order. The assessee shall approach the office of Ld. CIT(A) and get served a notice of hearing and thereafter appear before the CIT(A) on the date fixed by hearing and co-operate in the disposal of the appeal.

In the result all the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes. (Order Pronounced in the Court on 07/10/2015).