RAJIV MEHRA,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

The assessee has raised as many as 9 grounds which relates to the addition of Rs. 9,00,000/- sustained by the ld. CIT(A) by passing the ex-parte order. The Ground No. 6 which was argued at the first instance by the ld. Counsel for the assessee reads as under: “6. That on the facts of the case and under the law, the ld. CIT(A)-XXVII, New Delhi had erred in passing the appellate order dt. 05.02.2014, without hearing the assessee. The notice of hearing/letter dt. 30.12.2013 allegedly issued by the ld. CIT(A)-XXVII, New Delhi had not reached into the hands of the assessee.”

2 Rajiv Mehra 3. Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee furnished the return of income on 29.10.2004 declaring an income of Rs. 1,28,552/- which was processed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on 12.02.2005. Later on, the AO received the information that the assessee had introduced Rs. 9,00,000/- by receiving the cheques from Smt. Sarita Gupta. The AO issued the notice u/s 148 of the Act for initiating the proceedings u/s 147 of the Act. The AO made the addition of Rs. 9,00,000/- by observing that gift of Rs. 9,00,000/- was an income from undisclosed sources.

Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the addition by passing the ex-parte order and observing in para 2 of the impugned order that the notice for hearing on 22.01.2014 was issued to the assessee on 30.12.2013 by Speed Post but nobody was present on the said date.

Now the assessee is in appeal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the notice for hearing claimed to have been issued by the ld. CIT(A) was not received by the assessee. It was further stated that the ld. CIT(A) has not appreciated the facts in right prospective and was not justified in confirming the addition made by the AO.

In his rival submissions the ld. DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below and further submitted that the assessee did not 3 Rajiv Mehra cooperate and remained absent whenever the case was fixed for hearing. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) was fully justified in confirming the addition made by the AO.

I have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. In the present case, it is noticed that the ld. CIT(A) passed the order ex-parte without affording a due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It is well settled that nobody should be condemned unheard as per the maxim ‘audi alteram partem’. I, therefore, keeping in view the principles of natural justice set aside the impugned order and remand the case back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to be adjudicated afresh after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. (Order Pronounced in the Court on 23/09/2015)