RAJ KUMAR,MANALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KULLU

The assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid assessment order dt. 2112/2019 had preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who by “Impugned order” has dismissed the same exparte.

The assessee being aggrieved by the “Impugned order” has preferred Present second appeal before us and in Form No. 36 has raised following grounds of appeal:

That order assed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi is against law and facts on the file in as much as NFAC was not justified to decide the appeal exparte.

That the Learned CIT(A) was not justified not to decide the appeal on merits. 3. That the Learned CIT(A) gravely erred in upholding the action of the Learned Assessing Officer in making an addition of Rs. 30,00,300/- on account of cash deposit out of sale proceed as unexplained money u/s 69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Income Tax, 1961. 4. That the Learned CIT(A) further gravely erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 5,38,540/- by invoking provisions of Section 44AD and supply a rate of 8 per cent on total receipt of Rs. 67,31,750/-. Record of Hearing 5. The physical hearing before us took place on 24/07/2024 when both the parties appeared before us and that they were patiently heard at length. It was contended by the Ld. AR that there was a communication gap between former CA Inder Raj Chanauriya and assessee consequently he had no information about his case with the Income Tax Department. It was contended that due to this there is delay of 52 days in filing the appeal also and that same may please be condoned. It was thereafter contended that assessee had no access to notice dt. 02/01/2021, 05/01/2022 and 08/09/2023 given by Ld. CIT(A) for hearing of the appeal as there was no communication with former CA. It was therefore requested that impugned order of Ld. CIT(A) be set aside and matter be remanded for fresh decision. The Ld. DR contended that the assessee ought to have been vigilant since he was not vigilant and non responsive the Ld. CIT(A) has correctly passed the impugned order. The inaction of the assesseis thus clogging the system which is causing hardship to the Department. No leeway be given to the assessee. Findings and Conclusions 6. We hold that the assessee has shown reasonable cause for condonation of delay, accordingly delay is condoned. 6.1. After condoning the delay we notice that “Impugned order” is exparte as no opportunity in effective manner is noticed by us to have been given to the assesse even at the original stage as Ld.AO’s order is under section 144 despite there being a reply dt. 20/09/2019 and appearance by the assessee. Para 5.1 of the Ld. AO’s order