AMRINDER SINGH VILLAGE UKSI JATTAN, POST OFFICE BASANTPURA, TEHSIL RAJPURA DISTRICT PATIALA,PUNJAB vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD , PUNJAB

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च�ीगढ़ �ायपीठ “बी” , च�ीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “B”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: PHYSICAL MODE �ी आकाश दीप जैन, उपा�� एवं �ी िव�म िसंह यादव, लेखा सद� BEFORE: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN, VP & SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM आयकर अपील सं./ िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Amrinder Singh बनाम The ITO Village Uksi Jattan, PO-Basantpura, Ward- Rajpura Teh: Rajpura, Dist: Patiala, Punjab Punjab �ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: BJBPS1864H अपीलाथ�/Appellant ��थ�/Respondent िनधा�रती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज� की ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Danish Abdullah, JCIT, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 27/08/2024 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 28/08/2024 आदेश/Order PER VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. :

This is an appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/ NFAC, Delhi dt. 31/01/2024 pertaining to Assessment Year 2011-12.

1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee ex-parte and confirming the order of the Ld. AO.

2. That no notice has been received in physical mode and the notices sent on the electronic mode could not be accessed due to the reasons beyond the control of the assessee. Thus, the assessee was prevented by sufficient and reasonable cause in not appearing before the Ld. CIT(A).

, the confirmation of addition as made by the Ld. AO to the tune of Rs. 25,00,000/- & agricultural income of Rs. 2,66,800/- is against the facts & circumstances of the case.

4. That the Ld. AO has erred in reopening of the assessment u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and there was no reason to believe and also there has been mechanical satisfaction of the Ld. PCIT and as such the assessment as reopened deserves to be quashed.

5. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend any grounds of appeal before or time of hearing.

3. During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that notices for hearing were sent by the Ld. CIT(A) on email id of assessee’s Counsel i.e; cavivekjain84@gmail.com. However the Counsel has neither filed any response nor intimated to the assessee about the date of hearing and there is a clear lapse on the part of the Counsel and the assessee has since changed the Counsel and has engaged another Counsel. In support, an affidavit of the assessee was placed on record and it was submitted that the assessee should not be penalized for failure on part of the Counsel who was duly appointed and brief was given. It was submitted that the assessee deserve one opportunity before the matter is decided and it was accordingly prayed that the matter may be set-aside to the file of the ld CIT(A) to decide the same afresh after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 28/08/2024