RAJNISH KUMAR,KURUKSHETRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KURUKSHETRA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, NEAR COMMUNITY HALL, KURUKSHETRA

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"ीगढ़ "ायपीठ “एस. एम. सी” , च"ीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “SMC”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: PHYSICAL MODE "ी कृणव"त सहाय लेखा सद"य एवं "ी परेश म. जोशी , "याियक सद"य , BEFORE: SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM & SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI, JM आयकर अपील सं./ िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Rajnish Kumar The ITO, बनाम C/o Rajiv Goel and Associates Ward-1, Kurukshetra 179, Bank Road, Ambala Cantt. 133001, Kurukshetra, Haryana- 136118 "ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AASPB8531H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Dhruv Goel, CA राज" की ओर से/ Revenue by : Sh. Dharamvir, JCIT, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 24/07/2024 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 30/07/2024 आदेश/Order PER PARESH M. JOSHI, J.M. :

This is an appeal filed by the Assessee before this Tribunal in terms of Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee is aggrieved by order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1057118546(1) dt. 17/10/2023 passed by Ld. CIT(A) which is hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned order”.

1. That the learned C1T(A) NFAC Delhi has erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal on ex- parte basis without providing adequate opportunity of being heard.

2. That the learned CIT(A) NFAC Delhi has erred in law and on facts in confirming the additions of Rs. 19,16,520/- made by the assessing officer on account of alleged undisclosed gain from sale of shares.

3. That the learned CIT(A) NFAC has erred in law and on facts in confirming the validity of notice u/s 148 dated 30.03.2021.

4. That the learned CIT(A) NFAC has erred in law and on facts in confirming the validity of actions of AO in completing the assessment without issuance of notice u/s 143(2). 5. That the learned C1T(A) NFAC has erred in law and on facts in confirming the actions of the AO in reopening the assessment as well as completing the assessment without providing relied upon documents or information and without providing adequate opportunity of being heard. 6. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or to substitute the above ground(s) of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of case.

3. The personal hearing in the matter was fixed on 24/07/2024 when both the parties appeared before us. They were heard at length for some time. Upon a query by Bench that the “ Impugned order” of Ld. CIT(A) is exparte and is in the violation of principles of natural justice and that the very first ground itself of the assesseein Form 36 shows this aspect and as to further whether in these circumstances the assessee would like to go back to the Ld. CIT(A)for denovo consideration by him. Both Ld. AR and Ld. DR agreedto it.

4. We in view of the foregoing and after perusing the Impugned order of Ld. CIT(A) hold that “Impugned order” is exparte and in violation of principles of natural justice. We also notice that despite opportunities on 06/09/2023, 19/09/2023 and 29/09/2023 nobody appeared before the Ld. CIT(A). Upon assurance and undertaking of Ld. AR given to us during the course of the hearing before us that a last opportunity be provided to the assesse and that he would appear before the Ld. CIT(A) and fully cooperate with Department, we deem fit, just and proper to set aside the “Impugned order” and remand the case back to the Ld. CIT(A) on denovo basis with a direction to him to pass a speaking order on merits of the case, which should be a reasoned one.

5. Accordingly impugned order is set aside as and by way of remand to Ld. CIT(A).

Order pronounced in the open Court on 30/07/2024 कृणव"त सहाय परेश म. जोशी ( KRINWANT SAHAY) (PARESH M. JOSHI) लेखा सद"/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER "ाियक सद" / JUDICIAL MEMBER AG