KAMLESH MAHAJAN,CHANDIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CHANDIGARH

The assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid assessment order made by the Ld. AO dt. 23/12/2019 had preferred first appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who by impugned order has sustained the order of the Ld. AO dt. 23/12/2019 by dismissing the appeal.

Being aggrieved by the impugned order the assessee is before us and has raised following grounds in Form No. 36. 1. Section 144: Ex Parte That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law by passing the order ex parte and the appeal be considered keeping in view the principles of natural justice.

Section 68: Unexplained Money - That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law by confirming an addition of Rs.22,46,795/- under Section-68 r.w.s. 115BBE of Income tax Act, 1961 as unexplained cash credits on account of cash deposits done during the demonetization period when the source of such cash deposits was from the regular Cash Sales, debtor collections as well as cash in hand in the audited books of accounts done u/s 44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, all of which stood well explained with supporting evidences and therefore the addition as unexplained cash credits was not justified and bears to be deleted.

In view of the above and such other grounds, which may be taken at the time of hearing, the appeal may please be allowed, and justice rendered.

1 The assessee on 24/07/2024 has filed before us one page submissions in which it is interalia contended as follows: “The assessee is engaged in the trading business. For the assessment year 2017-18, her case was selected for Complete Scrutiny under CASS. The Assessing Officer (AO) passed an order under Section 143(3) and made an addition of र 22,46,795/- on account of cash deposits during the demonetisation period. An appeal was subsequently filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre. During this process, the assessee's counsel was compiling relevant documentation submitted during the assessment proceedings and additional evidence that needed to be brought to the attention of the CIT(A). An adjournment was also requested for one of the hearing dates.

The physical hearing took place before us today i.e; 25/07/2024 when both the parties were heard at length. During the hearing there was near consensus between both the parties that the Impugned order should be set aside and matter be remanded back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) as per se the impugned order is in violation of the principles of natural justice as the Impugned order was passed exparte as counsel of the assessee missed the scheduled hearing and could not file the adjournment request. Upon a query by Bench whether matter should be remanded, which was made to both the parties. Both the parties accepted fairly that the ends of justice require one more opportunity be given to the Assessee by Ld. CIT(A).

In view of the foregoing we hold that the impugned order is in the violation of the principles of natural justice and we hold that the “nature” of the impugned order is exparte. Order

In the premises set out hereinabove we set aside the impugned order and remand the case back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the case on denovo basis by giving an opportunity to the assessee to set up a plausible defence and after an opportunity is given to pass a speaking and well reasoned order on merits of the case. Assessee and his counsel to be vigilant and cooperate with Department in disposing off the appeal.

Appeal allowed as and by way of Remand.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 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

""थ"/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयु"/ CIT 4. आयकर आयु" (अपील)/ The CIT(A) 5. िवभागीय "ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, च"ीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. गाड" फाईल/ Guard File