TARSEM LAL SHARMA,UNA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

Grounds of appeal are as under: -

That the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is against law and facts of the case on the file.

That the Ld. CIT(A) has, gravely erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 1,08,46,090/-, which deserves to be deleted as the assessee could not appear due to reasonable cause and had requested for adjournment which was not considered by Ld. CIT(A).

That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) gravely erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 1,08,46,090/- on account of cash Deposits in bank account out of business receipts of the assessee without considering the facts of the case and without observing the principles of natural justice.

That the appellant begs to add or amend any ground of appeal before the appeal is heard and disposed off.

At the very outset, the ld. Counsel of the Assessee submitted that this order was passed by the ld. CIT(A) ex-parte because some of the notices were sent only on I.T. Portal which could not be seen by the Assessee. The ld. Counsel has filed a written submissions on this issue, which is as under:- “It is submitted that, the accountant of the appellant had registered his email id i.e. harvindersharma21@gmail.com in the income tax portal of the appellant. The five notices for hearing have been sent by the worthy CIT(A) NFAC Delhi. The accountant of the appellant had applied two

The ld. DR relied on the order of the CIT(A). 5. We have considered the findings given by the ld. CIT(A) in his appeal order for passing the ex-parte order and we find that the ld. CIT(A) has not passed this order on merits. Although the initial two notices were received by the Assessee for which they have filed adjournment letter but later on all the notices were issued by the CIT(A) on the I.T. Portal which could not be seen by the Assessee, therefore, the Assessee could not comply. The ld. Counsel further brought to the notice of the Bench the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of ‘Munjal BCU Centre of Innovation and Entrepreneurship Vs CIT(E) Chandigarh’, CWP No. 21028/2023 dated 4.3.2024 and requested that as the service of notice was solely on portal which could not be seen by the Assessee, therefore, as per the Hon'ble jurisdictional High

The ld. DR has no objection as the request of the Assessee’s Counsel was based on the judgement of the jurisdictional Punjab & Haryana High Court (supra).

We have considered the findings of the ld. CIT(A) in his appeal order and the submissions filed by the ld. counsel of the Assessee. We have also considered the arguments put before us by the ld. Counsel for the Assessee. Accordingly, in view of the above, in the interest of justice, the matter is remitted to the file of the CIT(A), to be decided afresh on merit, in accordance with law, on affording due and adequate opportunity of hearing to the Assessee. The Assessee, no doubt, shall cooperate in the fresh proceedings before the CIT(A). All pleas available under the law shall remain so available to the assessee. Ordered accordingly.

In the result, the appeal is allowed Order pronounced on 26.09.2024.