Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण,च�डीगढ़ �यायपीठ, च�डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH, ‘B’, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ �नधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Sham Dulari, Vs. The ITO, बनाम C/o Tejmohan Singh, Ward-1, # 527,Sector 10-D, Mandi Gobindgarh Chandigarh �थायी लेखा सं./PAN No: FEDPD5224K अपीलाथ�/ APPELLANT ��यथ�/ REPSONDENT ( PHYSICAL HEARING ) �नधा�रती क� ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate. राज�व क� ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Vivek Varadhan, JCIT, Sr. DR सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing : 21.08.2024 उदघोषणा क� तार�ख/Date of Pronouncement : 22.08.2024 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, A.M.:
The appeal in this case has been filed by the Assessee against the order dated 26.02.2024 of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi.
Grounds of appeal
are as under: -
1. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law in passing an ex-parte order without affording a proper opportunity of hearing which is against the Principles of Natural Justice and 267-Chd-2024 Sham Dulari, Amloh 2 as such the order passed is arbitrary and unjustified.
2. Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law as well as on facts in upholding the addition of Rs.25,50,500/- made on account of cash deposits in the joint bank account which is arbitrary and illegal.
3. That the assessee had complete sources of cash deposit in the bank account being receipts from agricultural income and sale of agricultural land duly explained during the course of assessment proceedings and as such upholding of the addition is arbitrary and unjustified.
4. That the amount of Rs.25,50,500/- has already been added in the hands of the son of the assessee Shri Satwinder Mohan Sood and as such sustenance of addition in the hands of the present assessee tantamounts to double addition which is not permissible under law and as such the addition upheld is arbitrary and unjustified.
5. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard or disposed off.
6. That the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous, arbitrary, opposed to the facts of the case and thus untenable.
3. At the very outset, the ld. Counsel of the Assessee submitted during proceedings before us that it is an ex-parte order passed by the ld. CIT(A) where the order passed by the Assessing Officer was also 267-Chd-2024 Sham Dulari, Amloh 3 passed u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The ld. Counsel requested that in the interest of natural justice the case be reamended back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merit.
The ld. DR did not object to remanding this case to CIT(A).
We find that the appeal has been decided ex-parte without discussing any issue on merit. Therefore, keeping in view the element of natural 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 of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 22.08.2024.