SH. AMARJIT SINGH VPO AMARGARH, MALERKOTLA, SANGRUR,PUNJAB vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 LUDHIANA, PUNJAB

Grounds of appeal taken by the Assessee are reproduced as under: - 1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in passing the ex-parte order and thereby confirming the addition of Rs. 39,82,099 which includes addition amounting to Rs. 1305050 on account of unexplained money u/s 69A and addition amounting to Rs.2677049 on account of unexplained credits u/s 68.

That the Worthy CIT (A) has failed to appreciate that the assessee has duly proved the identity and creditworthiness of the lenders and the genuineness of the transactions amounting to Rs.26,77,049.

That the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the assessee had duly mentioned the correct email id for communication of notices, however, the notices were again being issued on the email of the previous counsel of the assessee and thus, the same was not intimated to the assessee.

The finding of the CIT(A) that the same has not complied is against the facts and circumstances of the case and hence the passing of ex-parte order by the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified.

That even certain findings/observations made by the Ld.CIT(A) confirming the addition is not proper because no proper opportunity had been given to the assessee to explain the facts of the case and to make the submission.

That the appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard or disposed off.

There is a delay of 15 days in filing of the appeal. The Assessee has filed an Affidavit giving reasons for delay in filing of the appeal. The affidavit submitted by the Assessee is as under: -

We have considered the reasons written in the affidavit. The DR had no objection to the condonation of the delay. Accordingly, the delay is condoned and we proceed to hear the appeal on meris.

Brief facts of the case, as submitted by the Counsel of the Assessee are as under:- The assessee is an individual assessee. The business of trading of gold and work of goldsmith under the name and style of M/s Mani Jewellers, the above said business carried out by the assessee since many years back. 1. The case was taken up for scrutiny and a notice u/s 143(2). During the assessment proceedings the Ld. Assessing Officer had made two additions i.e one addition of Rs. 13,05,050/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the I.T Act, 1961 and second the credit of R.s 26,77,049/- in the books of assessee is treated as unexplained under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and taxed as per provisions of the section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee filed an appeal before Worthy CIT(A). Subsequent thereto, the appeal was fixed and four notices for hearing have been sent by the Worthy CIT(A)-NFAC Delhi on the email of the counsel i.e ravis80290@gmail.com. 3. That the CIT(A) has issued most of the notices to another email i.e kumarvinod221805@gmail.com which belongs to

During the proceedings before us, the ld. Counsel of the Assessee submitted that since notices were issued wrongly on the e- mail address of the earlier Counsel who did not inform the Assessee, therefore, the Assessee could not comply with the notices. The ld. CIT(A) has also not given finding on merit. Therefore, the Counsel of the Assessee requested that the case may be remanded back to the CIT(A) to decide the issue on merit.

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 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 of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.