SHREE MANGAL RAM ROLLER FLOUR MILLS,AMBALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4 , AMBALA

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the running of roller floor mill. The assessee e- filed its return declaring taxable income of Rs. 2,61,810/- for the A.Y. 2017-18 on 30/10/2017. Later on, the case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS. Thereafter, notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 06/09/2018 and served upon the assessee electronically. The AO stated that the assessee deposited cash amounting to Rs. 75,50,000/- during demonetization period and the assessee was asked to explain the source of cash deposit during demonetization period. In response,

Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who has since sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer by passing an ex-parte order.

Now the assessee is in appeal before us.

The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in passing the ex-parte order and confirming arbitrary addition made by the Assessing Officer. It was submitted that the notices were sent on the old email id which was no more in use and different then the email id given in Form 35 for receiving the notices, hence, the notices were not served on the assessee resulting in passing of ex-parte order. It was submitted that the assessee doesn’t stand to benefit from non-attending to the notices and proceedings before the ld CIT(A) and the assessee be provided an opportunity to represent its case on merits and the matter may accordingly be set-aside to the file of the ld CIT(A).

In his rival submissions, the Ld. Sr. DR supported the orders of the authorities below. At the same time, it was fairly submitted that the Revenue has no objection where the matter is set-aside to the file of the ld CIT(A) to decide the same on merits of the case.

We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. In the present case, the notices were sent on the old email id of the assessee which was not in use and different than the email id stated in Form 35 for sending the notices as so submitted by the assessee in its affidavit and contents thereof have not been disputed by the Revenue resulting in passing of the ex-parte order passed by the ld CIT(A). keeping in view the principles of natural justice, we believe that the assessee deserve one more opportunity to represent its case and deem it appropriate to set aside the case back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) to be adjudicated afresh in accordance with law after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee shall co-operate in timely completion of the appellate proceedings and submitted necessary information/documentation as so advised and/or called for.

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 13/09/2024. परेश म. जोशी िव"म िसंह यादव (PARESH M. JOSHI) ( VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) "ाियक सद" / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद"/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

""यथ"/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयु"/ CIT 4. आयकर आयु" (अपील)/ The CIT(A) 5. िवभागीय "ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, च"डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. गाड" फाईल/ Guard File